Case summaries for Oct. 18-24, 2024

Appellate | Criminal | Evidence | Local government | Post-conviction | Workers' compensation

Appellate

No new arguments on appeal
The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition and denied the petitioner’s motion to vacate the dismissal and amend the petition. The latter ruling was the judgment appealed, so the petitioner’s appeal had to raise the same issues raised in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Because the petitioner first raised on appeal issues never raised in circuit court, the Missouri Court of Appeals could not address the petitioner’s arguments. And, even if the Court of Appeals could address those arguments, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when the petitioner had plenty of time to amend before the dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Danielle DeLoatch, Appellant, vs. St. Louis Public Schools, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112318

Criminal

Habeas corpus vacates conviction in 1980 homicide
On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, gateways for raising a procedurally defaulted claim included “newly discovered evidence suggest[ing that] an innocent person has been convicted” because of a constitutional violation, much like a Brady violation. A Brady violation of due process occurred when the State—including police—suppressed favorable evidence to the defense’s prejudice, meaning no juror would have convicted defendant knowing of the suppressed evidence. Because the allegation is a petition for habeas corpus did not limit the grounds for relief, such evidence could include physical evidence tying an alternate perpetrator—a police officer—and FBI reports not disclosed until the habeas corpus proceeding. “The Attorney General's assertion that the [S]tate was ambushed by exculpatory evidence [that petitioner] did not know about until discovery was conducted after her habeas petition was filed borders on the absurd.” Issuing a writ of certiorari was not discretionary, required the circuit court to certify the record to the issuing court, and the only relief possible was quashing the record. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that habeas relief was due. That was especially true considering movant’s lengthy history of serious mental illnesses; and movant’s multiple inconsistent confessions, which formed the only basis for the guilty plea, and were accurate only as to information already within the public domain. The record supported the circuit court’s issuance of the habeas corpus writ, so the Court of Appeals refused to quash the record. The Court of Appeals ordered defendant released unless the State filed and exercised a written election to re-try defendant within times certain. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri Ex Rel., Andrew Bailey vs. The Honorable Ryan W. Horsman, Circuit Judge, and Jane Gann, Circuit Clerk 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87305

Abandonment of a corpse shown
Any constitutional challenge to a statute had to occur before a post-trial motion. “In the absence of any evidence from Stock as to [defendant’s] mental state, the circuit court was entitled to rely on its own personal observations in determining [defendant]’s competency.” The elements of abandonment of a corpse included having had some interest in the corpse, which the State showed with evidence of how defendant disposed of it. On a charge of tampering with physical evidence the elements included impeding a criminal investigation, which the State supported with evidence that defendant dismembered a corpse, concealed parts of it, and set fire to the rest. That element was absent from the instruction, and the instruction recited a lesser mental state, but those elements were not seriously in dispute, so no plain error occurred. But plain error occurred when the circuit court submitted the instruction on abandonment of a corpse modified to reference “parts of a corpse.” Plain error also occurred when the circuit court imposed a monetary penalty payable to the Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund not authorized by statute. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Colton Stock
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86198

Multiple child neglect convictions affirmed
The elements of child neglect as charged included a substantial probability of physical injury, which the State showed with expert evidence on the effects of defendant’s failure to provide routine medical care, and medical care during an acute but treatable illness. The elements of child abuse as charged included mental impairment, which the State supported with evidence that defendant denied children any education. The elements of plain error review included an open, evident, and obvious error, which caselaw facially refuted by allowing separate convictions for separate offenses. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Nancy J. Royal 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD85680

Evidence

Verdict reversed on inflammatory evidence despite remedy
In an action for injuries caused by a vehicular collision, “[t]he only relevant evidence of speed is the speed immediately before the collision.” Before the collision, the parties had been racing each other, but the race was over five minutes before the collision and was therefore unconnected to the collision. The admission of evidence on the race was inflammatory and prejudicial “despite the trial court striking the evidence from the record and instructing the jury to disregard all the evidence concerning the race.” 
(Overview summary) 
Clayton Childers, Appellant, vs. Noah Williams, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112692

Local government

Cost of boarding prisoners explained
One statute provided that any county officer purchasing “supplies, materials or equipment” without authority was personally liable for such costs. That statute did not mention a county boarding prisoners outside that county. A county boarding prisoners outside that county was the subject of another statute, which provided specifically that the county was liable for such costs. The latter controlled. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
HENRY COUNTY and TANEY COUNTY, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. W. ARCHIE DUNN, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38231

Post-conviction

No need for non-meritorious argument
Movant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, meaning that counsel’s substandard performance prejudiced movant’s defense. Counsel was never ineffective for choosing against a non-meritorious argument. Trial counsel did not object to the State’s photograph of movant’s garage, which included a display of knives used to intimidate associates, but an objection would not have been meritorious. An objection to the State’s closing argument had support in the evidence so an objection would not have been meritorious; and trial counsel’s choice to argue a different inference was sound strategy. The motion did not argue that appellate counsel should have challenged the conviction under the corpus delecti rule and so waived that argument on appeal. The evidence supporting guilt, including deliberation, was sufficient and a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence would not have been meritorious.
KEVIN C. NEWMAN, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38197

No hearing necessary
Rule provided that circuit court could deny a relief without an evidentiary hearing when the record already refuted the motion’s allegations. The motion alleged that movant pleaded guilty only because plea counsel failed to advise movant that a mistaken belief, about which controlled substance he possessed, was a defense. But the record of the plea hearing showed that movant knew all about the differing substances, and the possible defense, and pleaded guilty anyway. And which controlled substance movant possessed was irrelevant, because the statute violated addressed “any” controlled substance without distinguishing among controlled substances, so no prejudice occurred. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment denying relief without a hearing.
(Overview summary) 
Hardy Gaines, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112160

Workers’ compensation

Subrogation lien enforced
Statute addressed a workers’ compensation lienholder’s interest in a claimant’s judgment against a third party. That statute allowed the parties to divide the balance of the recovery, remaining after the costs of the recovery including attorney fees, by agreement. The parties’ agreement provided that the lienholder could recover a maximum in the amount of the lien. The circuit court did not err in applying the plain language of the statute and the agreement accordingly. The parties’ failure to anticipate the size of the recovery did not constitute a mutual mistake that would support rescission of the agreement and, even if it did, appellants failed to raise that theory before appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Jason Wolk, et al., Appellants, v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112371