Case summaries for Nov. 7-13, 2025

Criminal | Evidence | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Probate

Criminal

Constructive possession shown 
A statement of “no objection” did not waive error as to previously argued and mutually understood objections. The defendant’s objections in circuit court were sufficient to preserve error as to the lawfulness of a series of searches. “Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause” and consisted of the totality of circumstances rather than each separate circumstance. Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity supported brief detentions. Reasonable suspicion of danger supported protective searches. A traffic stop and protective search were lawful, so the resulting evidence was admissible. Possession of an item consisted of knowledge of the item and control over it, of which easy reach was evidence. Nervous demeanor alone did not constitute reasonable suspicion or show possession, but it was a factor. False statements to law enforcement also showed guilt. The circuit court did not err in finding that the defendant felon was in possession of a firearm constructively. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Jonathan Edward Rainey 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87377

Generalized evidence on domestic violence behavior was okay 
In criminal actions, constitutional provisions protected a complete defense and erroneous limitation was presumptively prejudicial. But no error occurred when the circuit court limited the defendant’s cross-examination to personal first-hand knowledge and barred questions that called for speculation as to what would have happened under different events. An objection to logical relevance did not preserve an objection to legal relevance. A State expert's testimony on delayed reporting of domestic abuse was relevant to the defendant’s theory of self-defense and the victim’s retaliation. And the defendant did not show that the testimony was outcome-determinative, especially considering the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The defendant did not show that a definition of “knowingly” in jury instructions constituted plain error because it was required, lawful, and unobjected-to and because the defendant did not show that it was outcome-determinative. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Greg Hallgrimson 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86680

Evidence

Prejudice not shown 
To be admissible, evidence had to be relevant logically and legally. When the defendant alleged self-defense, a video of the defendant’s arrest became logically relevant because it showed the defendant’s flight until detained by law enforcement. Legal relevance meant that probative value outweighed unfair prejudice. The video showed an otherwise uneventful traffic stop and arrest. And the video was cumulative of testimony, negating prejudice. A video of the defendant in a patrol car corroborated the allegations against the defendant, negated self-defense, and showed consciousness of guilt. Prejudice from the video was not unfair; the video was disturbing because the defendant’s conduct was disturbing. The defendant did not show that plain error occurred when the circuit court admitted the defendant’s medical records because the defendant did not show that they were outcome-determinative. The record showed that defendant consciously determined not to seek an instruction on defense of another so no review was possible of the circuit court’s failure to submit such an instruction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Patrick Logan Pulse 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87238

Introductory questioning was okay 
In criminal actions, evidentiary rulings were subject to review for was outcome-determinative error. On charges of statutory rape in the first degree, statutory sodomy in the first degree, and using a child in a sexual performance, the State offered evidence that the defendant’s occupation was as a school resource officer. The defendant objected to relevance, which the circuit court overruled. No error occurred because the evidence was relevant and cumulative of other evidence entered without objection. And any party could generally ask any witness preliminary questions to set “a proper estimate on [the witness’s] testimony” like age, residence, and occupation. And other evidence of guilt was overwhelming, so no outcome-determinative prejudice resulted. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ROB RUEL PILKINGTON, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38764

Personal injury

Massachusetts rule negated duty to clear snow and ice 
A defending party could prevail on summary judgment by establishing, beyond genuine dispute, facts showing that the claimant party could not establish an element of the claimant’s action. The elements of an action for negligence included a duty from the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed injury from uncleared ice and snow on the defendant’s premises. The Massachusetts Rule negated any duty to clear snow and ice naturally accumulated across the community. The defendant established without dispute that snow and ice were general and whether snow and ice were still accumulating when the injury happened was immaterial. The Massachusetts Rule was not an affirmative defense because it neither negated the underlying tort nor required the pleading of facts additional to the plaintiff’s claim. The Massachusetts Rule did not apply to the defendants who assumed a duty to clear snow and ice, by agreement or by a course of conduct over time, while still general in the community; but the plaintiff failed to establish such facts. 
(Overview summary) 
Larry Brandes vs. Bothwell Regional Health Center 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87735

Post-conviction

No ruling on late motion 
The deadlines for filing were mandatory and untimely filing of an initial motion vested no authority in the circuit court to rule on the motion. Exceptions for third party interference nor circuit court misinformation did not apply, and the movant’s misunderstanding of the law did not constitute an exception. The circuit court found that the initial motion was late and ruled on the amended motion anyway. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated that ruling and remanded the action to circuit court for dismissal. 
KEVIN KELLY, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38760

Probate

No error shown in procedure for guardianship and conservatorship 
The appellant initiated the action as to the protectee. The probate division issued an earlier judgment of incapacity and disability and appointing a guardian and conservator. Because the appellant prevailed, the appellant had no standing to appeal the earlier judgment or challenge that judgment as void for violation of due process. “Constitutional rights are personal to the affected party, and third parties do not have standing to challenge their violation.” No hearing was necessary before the probate division also issued a later judgment approving the conservator’s final settlement. The appellant could not appeal the earlier judgment by appealing the later judgment. The appellant could not appeal the later judgment by taking a position inconsistent with the appellant’s position in circuit court. When a successor public administrator took over the protectee’s assets, the appellant was not due a receipt and the appellant did not show any error in the protectee’s inventory. 
IN THE MATTER OF: SHIRLEY MAE BUTLER, INC/DSB, GREGORY LEE, Petitioner-Appellant v. KIMBERLY CLARK, Respondent-Respondent, LORETTA ROUSE and REBECCA ALLEN, Intervenors-Respondents 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38425