Case summaries for Nov. 6-12, 2026

Criminal | Family | Miscellaneous actions | Orders of protection | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Probate | Tax

Criminal

Impairment of prosecution shown
The elements of tampering with physical evidence as a class E felony included impairing a felony prosecution. The State supported that element with evidence that the defendant’s handling of the victim’s body obscured the time of death. Mistrials were remedies for “extraordinary circumstances” and were unnecessary when swift remedies for inadmissible evidence negated prejudice. Other overwhelming and unobjected evidence negated prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Robert Peterson
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88180

Subsequent police conduct to show an alternative perpetrator rejected
Evidence of an alternative perpetrator required evidence of “some act directly connecting that person with the crime [.]” The rule against hearsay generally barred out-of-court declarations offered for the truth of the matters declared. Evidence of declarations offered to explain subsequent police conduct, offered to “provide context or continuity” was not offered for the truth of those declarations, so it was not hearsay. So evidence of subsequent police conduct itself was not necessarily admissible. Out-of-court declarations about ballistics information offered to link the weapon used in the defendant’s offense to an alternate perpetrator were simply hearsay, even when offered to show what police did not investigate. “[T]he fact that the firearm was located and linked to [an alternate perpetrator] by some out-of-court declarant was not necessary to explain subsequent conduct of Detective—it was itself the conduct [defendant] sought to prove.” Evidence that the alternate perpetrator once owned the weapon used in the crime did not place the alternate perpetrator at the crime scene and would only have confused the jury. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Deion D. Crum
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87996

Search was okay, resulting evidence was sufficient
Detention for a traffic violation could last as long as reasonably necessary to investigate the traffic violation, subject to extension when reasonable and articulable grounds to suspect illegal activity arose during the investigation. Such was the case when the driver’s statements and other conduct suggested contraband in the car, so the seizure and search were not unlawful. The search yielded an item of paraphernalia that, the State alleged, the defendant passenger used to inhale methamphetamine. The item was a straw, and the straw was sealed at one end, rendering the straw useless for ingesting methamphetamine. That evidence did not support a conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia as charged, which was that the straw had been used for ingestion. But it didn’t have to. Due process required only that the record support a finding that the defendant committed the elements of the crime “regardless of the manner in which the charging document or jury instruction describe the crime” and “even if the evidence shows the defendant committed these elements in a manner other than that described in the charging document and/or jury instruction.” The statute offered 22 ways to commit the offense, including storage, which the record supported. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lisa Coots, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101563

Family

Contempt not purged
The movant filed motions for warrant and commitment to enforce a judgment of contempt. The contempt judgment provided how the contemnor could purge the contempt. And it provided that failure to make payments to the movant could result in jail. At the hearing on the motion, the circuit court refused an unsigned version of a bankruptcy court document, showing the survival of contemnor’s non-exempt debts to the movant, and refused to re-open the record for the signed version. Re-opening the record presented no inconvenience to the circuit court and no unfair advantage to the movant so that ruling was an abuse of discretion. The circuit court found that the contemnor had satisfied the debts to the movant, but the record showed otherwise. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in that regard and remanded the action to receive the signed bankruptcy document and payments due, and to consider whether to award the movant attorney fees to compensate for the contemnor’s breach of bankruptcy court orders.
(Overview summary)
Patricia K. Fish, Appellant, v. Brian D. Fish, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113890

Miscellaneous actions

Motor vehicle registration and ownership distinguished
The elements of conversion included ownership, and ownership of a motor vehicle depended on title as shown on a certificate, not registration. The plaintiffs assigned title in, and delivered, their wrecked car to a donee, so they lost standing to seek any damages related to that car. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Lawrence and Kay E., Keener v. Somerset Apartment, MGMT, L.L.C., et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88312

Orders of protection

Matters waived in circuit court and not supported on appeal
Parties who did not raise matters in circuit court waived them on appeal. The appellant raised no objection to personal jurisdiction. The appellant did not object to further relief pleaded before the evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the appellants had to identify rulings claimed to be erroneous and show error by citations to law, which the appellant failed to do. The appellant blended theories for reversal, making the appellant’s points multifarious and precluding review. Also, the appellant did not show that any irregularities in service of process, or the pleading for further relief, affected the circuit court’s jurisdiction or authority; nor that the circuit court erred in the admission of evidence or issuing judgment on that record; nor any error in the provisions for retrieval of property. The circuit court granted relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
R.A.W. v. S.R.W.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88729

Personal injury

“Massachusetts Rule” discussed
In an action for negligence, summary judgment was due a defendant who established facts beyond dispute that negated the element of duty owed to the plaintiff. Real property owners had a duty to make their property safe for guests, with exceptions. Exceptions included open and obvious dangers. Exceptions also included the Massachusetts Rule. That rule provided that owners had no duty to protect guests from general weather conditions like ice and snow. That exception did not apply to localized conditions that the owner’s treatment of such conditions created. Those provisions made relevant the condition of the property where the injury occurred, which the defendant’s facts, though undisputed, failed to address. The defendant did not carry its burden. Because review of summary judgment was de novo, preservation of that error was not necessary. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment for the defendant and remanded the action.
(Overview summary)
Jeff Woosley v. Super 6 Inn, L.L.C., D/B/A Motel 6
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88296

No instruction on comparative fault
All instructions had to have substantial supporting evidence. In an action for damages from a motor vehicle collision, the defendant sought a comparative fault instruction based on the plaintiff’s excessive speed. The record showed that the plaintiff’s speed could be excessive even when under the speed limit, depending on road conditions. What those conditions were, and whether the speed caused the wreck, the record did not show. Even if the circuit court had given the instruction, “no jury could have found” any fault in the plaintiff. The circuit court found for the plaintiff and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Amy Bolandis, Respondent, v. Thomas Bateman, and Unifirst Corp., Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114263

Regulations did not define negligence per se
A patient brought an action against her licensed professional counselor. Statutes authorized the body that governed licensed professional counselors to publish regulations setting standards for licensure. Those regulations did not constitute safety regulations, and the statutes did not provide a private right of action for violating those regulations. The circuit court erred in denying dismissal of that count for failure to state a claim. The record supported findings on separate wrongs that led to separate harms and separate awards, including claims of medical negligence, the Merchandising Practices Act violations, and common law battery. Therefore, no duplication of awards occurred and no merger was necessary. The record supported the instruction and award on future medical damages. The circuit court correctly reduced the award by the jury’s assessment of the plaintiff’s comparative fault and applied the statutory cap on noneconomic damages for medical negligence. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to negligence per se for violating a regulation and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
Anita Karase, Respondent, v. Craig Politte, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113279

Post conviction

Objections to evidence of victim behavior would have been meritless
The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel included “an unprofessional error” that “undermines confidence in the outcome.” That never included a meritless objection. On charges of sexual offenses, changes in victim behavior were probative of defendant guilt, and thus relevant logically and legally. And other unobjected evidence overwhelmingly showed guilt. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Rodger L. Gannan v. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88297

Self-defense strategy was okay
Appellate courts affirmed judgments supported by fact and law even if the circuit court’s reasoning was faulty. Whether counsel performed deficiently in the movant’s defense depended on the context of the action against the defendant, so how counsel performed in other actions was irrelevant. Simple self-defense allowed a defendant faced with deadly force to employ deadly force. Imperfect self-defense was self-defense with excessive force. “[A] simple, straightforward self-defense theory" was reasonable. Trial counsel never needed to offer evidence that harmed the defense, even if it also supported the defense. Trial counsel’s choice against cross-examining a State’s witness was a sound strategy because the testimony helped the self-defense theory and cross-examination would not have added anything. And trial counsel’s examination of a defense was adequate because the record supported a finding that the movant’s suggested questioning would have made no difference. The State’s argument about extra shots that the defendant fired went to deliberation and did not imply a duty to retreat and an instruction negating a duty to retreat did not have support in the record. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals denied affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
Terrell A. Ingram v. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87973

Ruling on direct appeal barred relief
Matters were not subject to post-conviction relief, whether brought under a theory of ineffective assistance of counsel or deprivation of due process, when already addressed on direct appeal. On direct appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when denying a motion for continuance. That conclusion on direct appeal barred a conclusion of prejudice on post-conviction relief. “To establish prejudice in the context of a rejected plea offer, a movant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the offer had he been afforded effective assistance of counsel, and a reasonable probability that neither the prosecution nor the trial court would have prevented the offer from being accepted or implemented.” The movant testified that he rejected the plea offer because he expected to win at trial. When the movant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness, among the things that the movant had to show was that trial counsel knew about the witness and the witness had evidence that unqualifiedly supported a defense. As to two witnesses not called, trial counsel did not know of one witness and the other would not have helped the defense. Trial counsel’s choice on impeaching a witness did not constitute ineffective assistance unless the impeachment evidence raised a defense. The defense theory was self-defense. The witness not impeached had no evidence relevant to that theory. The circuit court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
KAYLN TREASELL JOHNSON, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39050

Probate

Negligent misrepresentation applied to trust termination
Failure to make requested findings of fact required reversal only when such failure hindered appellate review. The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation included a representation that the declarant knew to be false. For a promise of future action, the declarant must have intended not to perform when making the promise. Failure to perform did not, alone, prove fraud. The record supported a finding that the decedent did not break a promise split their joint trust corpus but simply failed to do so before an untimely death, resulting in negligent misrepresentation. The elements of negligent misrepresentation included a pecuniary interest, which could include the termination of a joint trust. The record also supported a finding that the decedent planned to pay the plaintiff’s extraordinary medical expenses. To accomplish that end, equitable conversion and an equitable trust starting with the date of the judgment were appropriate because they did what should have been done: cover the expenses from the funds as intended. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
In the matter of: Ray Bergfeld, deceased.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113884

Tax

Plaintiffs had no standing to challenge Show-Me Sports Investment Act
Challenges to the validity of a state statute were within the Supreme Court of Missouri’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The circuit court’s amended judgment of dismissal did not specify with or without prejudice. But the initial judgment was with prejudice, the amended judgment effectively ended the litigation as pleaded, and the plaintiffs elected to stand on their pleading. Taxpayer standing required a direct expenditure of tax revenue that the plaintiffs did not show. The fiscal note made mere projections. Authorization to make expenditures was not an expenditure. Tax credits were neither direct nor an expenditure. The plaintiffs did not raise direct standing in circuit court and abandoned their theory of legislative standing by failing to set it forth in a point relied on. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment.
(Overview summary)
State Senator Michael Moon, et al., Appellants, v. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents, Cindy O’Laughlin, President Pro Tempore of the Missouri Senate, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101534

MSD liens treated like tax liens
In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff sought to declare a sewer district’s liens null and void. The priority and enforcement of sewer district liens was the same as State and county tax liens. Those liens were not perpetual, they were subject to enforcement for three years from notice to the county collector. Filing a lien with the recorder of deeds was no substitute. The circuit court denied enforcement of the liens, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that part of the judgment and remanded the action to determine which of the district’s liens were time-barred and which were not.
(Overview summary)
WMAC 2013, LLC, Appellant, v. Anthony Best LLC, resident tenant occupant, et al., Defendants, and The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Defendant/Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113868