Case summaries for Oct. 30-Nov. 5, 2026

Criminal | DWI | Employment Security | Evidence | Insurance | Post-Conviction

Criminal

Resisting arrest shown
During the defendant’s voir dire, the defendant abandoned a line of questioning, neither party made an objection, and the circuit court made no ruling, so nothing was preserved for appeal. The elements of resisting arrest included the defendant’s knowledge that an arrest was occurring. That did not require arresting officers to use the word “arrest.” Instructing the defendant to put his hands behind back while restraining the defendant was sufficient. And the defendant continued to resist after peace officers informed the defendant that an arrest was occurring. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JEREMY RUIZ-TOMASSINI, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39229

DWI

Only one time for contacting a lawyer
On driver’s appeal from the director of revenue’s decision to suspend driver’s license, the director had to show that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the driver for driving while intoxicated. The director supported that element with circumstantial — but substantial — evidence: the driver had driven erratically, the driver’s car was in a ditch, the driver was slow and argumentative in following the officer’s directives. And the director had to show that the driver refused a breath test after the prescribed time to try contacting a lawyer. That time started on the reading of the Implied Consent Law and did not start again on a re-reading of the law. The circuit court affirmed the suspension and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Jeremiah Johnson v. Director of Revenue
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88445

Employment Security

Resignation was clear, final, and voluntary
The claimant could not collect benefits if they voluntarily quit without good cause connected to work. Volition was a matter of fact and good cause was a matter of law. The record supported a finding that the claimant’s resignation was voluntary. “An employee’s attempt to rescind his resignation is effective only if made before the employer has accepted the resignation.” The elements of good cause included good faith, meaning consistent with a desire to work, and reasonableness. That did not describe quitting because a related employer terminated the claimant’s wife because that event was not attributable to the claimant’s employer. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied benefits and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
(Overview summary)
Ryan Nelson v. Denovo Recovery, Employer, and Division of Employment Security
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88815

Evidence

Hearsay was okay
The elements of plain error review included an obvious error resulting in manifest injustice Defendant ‘s point relied on described neither an obvious error. “[O]therwise inadmissible evidence can become admissible if its purpose is to explain . . . relevant background information and continuity [of] police conduct.” Police testimony explained how multiple 911 calls led to the arrest of the defendant and the defendant used that evidence to support a defense. “[T]his is exactly the reason we caution trial courts not to sua sponte intervene, as there appeared to be a valid reason for Johnson’s counsel not to object when evidence of the 911 call implicating Johnson was offered.” And the defendant’s point relied on described no manifest injustice because other evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error and affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Jeremiah Lesan Johnson
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88230

Insurance

Summary judgment affirmed on negligent failure to procure
Summary judgment looked solely to the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Appellate review of summary judgment was de novo. Summary judgment was due a party who established facts, beyond genuine dispute, that entitled that party to a favorable judgment. The defendants could do that by negating any single element of the plaintiff’s case. Insurance agents had no duty to advise customers what insurance to get, only to procure the insurance agreed on, or to notify the customer that the insurance has not been procured. The defendants established that the plaintiff insured got the policies as agreed, including uninsured motorist coverage. The plaintiff insured responded with denials but those denials created no genuine dispute. “Here, the true thrust of Appellant’s denials . . . is that the policies . . . did not pay out their full per person UM benefits in the particular circumstances of this case – i.e., that his . . . coverages were not fully stackable in the event that Appellant was involved in an accident with an uninsured motor vehicle [.]” Nothing in the summary judgment record showed any request for fully stackable coverages. The circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
TIM JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROBERT BERKE, BOB BERKE, INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39363

Post-Conviction

Flat fee did not create any conflict of interest
On a claim for claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant need not show resulting prejudice, when the premise is that counsel “actively” represented conflicting interests that such representation affected the counsel’s judgment in representing the defendant. The movant alleged that the trial counsel’s flat fee constituted an incentive to short the movant on effort. In support, the movant offered only conjecture. The trial counsel offered testimony to the contrary that the circuit court found credible. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Joseph Foster v. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87961