Case summaries for Oct. 10-16, 2025

Appellate | Criminal | DWI | Elections | Health | Local government | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Utilities

Appellate

No investigation by secretary of state, no appeal 
The right to appeal was purely statutory. Individuals could file a complaint with the Secretary of State, on which the Secretary of State could decide whether or not to investigate further. From that decision, no statute provided an appeal. Even if the decision constituted a non-contested case, plaintiff complainant did not show any “legal rights, duties or privileges” necessary to confer standing in circuit court. “[T]he indirect impact of an administrative agency’s decision on a ‘public interest’ is not a ‘private right’ involving a ‘personal claim’ sufficient to support standing to pursue . . . judicial review” so “simply having the right to make a complaint does not necessarily come with additional rights.” The circuit court did not err in dismissing complainant’s petition for judicial review. 
(Overview Summary) 
David J. Harris vs. Missouri Secretary of State 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87717

References to the record required 
Appellate challenges to a ruling based on the record, no support in substantial evidence or against the weight of the evidence, were distinct theories requiring separate and different analyses. Combining them rendered a point relied on multifarious. Each required references to the record, which appellant omitted, even from the statement of facts. After granting an opportunity to correct appellant’s briefing, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview Summary) 
In Re the Matter of: R.K.N., a minor child and by and through next friends, Abdur Nimeri Khalafalla and Abdur Nimeri Khalafalla, Individually vs. Peggy Riessen 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87653

Briefing deficiencies required dismissal 
Appellate rules kept the appellate courts neutral and prevented the appellate courts from constructing arguments for the parties. Each reason for reversal had to appear in a separate point relied on, cite any law declared or applied incorrectly, and set the law “in the context of the facts of the case.” The argument section had to refer to the record on appeal and address only matters raised in the respective point relied on. Any challenge to a ruling as unsupported by substantial evidence had to follow a specified analysis that appellant did not employ. Appellant’s errors preserved no error for review and impeded appellate review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
In re: The Marriage of: Kyndall Ryan Phillips and Hailey Elizabeth Stemel KYNDALL RYAN PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant v. HAILEY ELIZABETH STEIMEL, Respondent/Movant-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38801

Criminal

No plain error review for reference to “defendant’s charge” 
“A circuit court should declare a mistrial sua sponte ‘only in exceptional circumstances.’” That did not describe the State’s reference to instructions on a lesser-included offense as “Defendant’s charges” because defendant could not show any outcome-determinative effect. The Court of Appeals declined plain error review and affirmed the conviction. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. FRANKLIN B. ARMSTRONG, JR., Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38582

Evidence and findings on age of victim and defendant discussed 
The elements of statutory rape in the first degree included the victim’s age of less than 14 years. The State offered evidence of victim’s birth date, the date of the events alleged, and the weather on the day of those events. That evidence did not show victim’s age on the day of the events so it was insufficient to support a conviction for first degree statutory rape. But it was sufficient to show the victim’s age for second degree statutory rape. All that remained was a finding of defendant’s age. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the conviction for statutory rape in the first degree and remanded the action for a new trial on the lesser offense of statutory rape in the second degree. 
DOYLE EDWARD HITCHCOCK, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38719

DWI

Traffic violations supported a stop 
Plain error review was discretionary and required appellant to plead a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. That did not describe a traffic stop based on probable cause in the form of a traffic violation, even a minor violation. Driving without headlights on and stopping in an intersection, were traffic violations that supported a stop so the face of appellant’s pleading did not show a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeals declined plain error review of the circuit court’s failure to sua sponte suppress evidence resulting from the stop. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BRANDON WILLIE WALLS, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38786

Elections

No action by ethics commission, no appeal 
The right to appeal was purely statutory. Individuals could file a complaint with the Ethics Commission, on which the Commission could decide whether or not to take further action. From that decision, no statute provided an appeal. Even if the decision constituted a non-contested case, plaintiff complainant did not show any “legal rights, duties or privileges” necessary to confer standing in circuit court. “[T]he indirect impact of an administrative agency’s decision on a ‘public interest’ is not a ‘private right’ involving a ‘personal claim’ sufficient to support standing to pursue . . . judicial review” so “simply having the right to make a complaint does not necessarily come with additional rights.” The circuit court did not err in dismissing complainant’s petition for judicial review. 
(Overview Summary) 
David J. Harris vs. Missouri Ethics Commission 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87716

Health

Preliminary injunctions upheld in planned parenthood case 
The Supreme Court had exclusive appellate jurisdiction in actions challenging a statute’s constitutionality. That did not describe a preliminary injunction issued in such an action because preliminary injunctions did not require, and did not constitute, a ruling on constitutional issues. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not reach constitutional issues and reviewed preliminary injunctions for abuse of discretion, and only on issues raised in circuit court. The elements of a preliminary injunction included likelihood of success on the merits, which necessarily included whether a circuit court would reach the merits, which included matters of justiciability. Controversies over a statute’s constitutionality could be ripe before the State filed an action to enforce those statutes and the State’s promise not to enforce some of the challenged statutes did not moot that controversy. Rulings challenged on less than all supporting rationales were not subject to review, so the Court of Appeals did not review plaintiffs’ standing as a third party when defendants did not challenge plaintiffs’ standing as a first party. The prosecuting attorney was a proper defendant so the county was a proper venue. Plaintiffs’ prima facie case, that the challenged statutes violated constitutional anti-discrimination provisions, raised a presumption of invalidity that the State did not rebut. That violation would constitute irreparable harm, the prevention of which was in the public interest. “[T]he circuit court[’s] exhaustive consideration of the preliminary injunction” showed no abuse of discretion. 
(Overview Summary) 
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, et al. vs. State of Missouri, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD88244

Local government

State pay limited during federal deployment 
Statutes addressed the retention of State employment rights and benefits while deployed as part of the National Guard. One statute applied to federal deployment and preserved “pay status.” The other statute applied to deployment by State authority and preserved a right to receive pay for 120 days. The latter statute applied to plaintiff. 
(Overview Summary) 
David Woody vs. Patrick Clark, Jay Bettis, & Richard Riddell 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87715

Personal injury

Clerical abuse statute of limitations was tolled pending bankruptcy 
Claims for relief required plaintiffs to show standing, which included a legally enforceable right to relief. Rights to relief transferred in bankruptcy from the debtor to their bankruptcy estates, including pending claims for relief, so debtors’ claims ceased to be the debtors’ property. Plaintiff sought bankruptcy protection before seeking relief from past clerical abuse. But that action remained plaintiff’s property, even after bankruptcy, because the claim accrued when reasonably ascertainable. Reasonably ascertainable claims did not include claims that were subject to suppressed memories, so the claim accrued when the plaintiff recovered the suppressed memory, and plaintiff filed timely from that date. 
(Overview Summary) 
John J.P. Doe, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of St. Louis, et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED112916

Post-conviction

Claim not preserved for appeal 
Claims not raised in circuit court were waived. Movant’s motion alleged that movant’s sentencing resulted from a mistake of law by the circuit court or ineffective representation by appellate counsel. A claim that movant’s sentencing resulted from ineffective representation by trial counsel did not appear in any motion and so was waived. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment denying relief. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JAMES GUTHRIE, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38707

Utilities

Video service provider act amendments applied 
The Video Service Provider Act required video service providers to pay a fee to municipalities whose rights of way the providers used. The General Assembly amended the Act’s definition of video services to exclude streaming services. The General Assembly could not extinguish debts to government entities and amendments presumptively altered the law prospectively. But amendments could also clarify existing law, especially in response to a judicial interpretation, which did not raise retrospectivity issues. Such was the case with the amendments as narrowly tailored language showed. The General Assembly never intended to subject streaming service providers to the fee, so the General Assembly did not extinguish any debt, and the amendments did not unjustly enrich streaming service providers. Local rule restricted amici curiae to persons who plead issues otherwise unaddressed, which movants for amicus status failed to do. 
(Overview Summary) 
City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, Appellant, vs. DirecTV, LLC, et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113308