Case summaries for Nov. 28-Dec. 5, 2024

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Personal injury | Post-conviction

Appellate

Plain error review declined 
The state showed a video-recorded interview of the defendant by a detective who later testified on the same matter. The defendant’s objection that the video “speaks for itself” did not preserve challenges of cumulative evidence, best evidence, and improper bolstering. No manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice appeared on the face of the defendant’s claim of plain error, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. TODD JOHN MAYES, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38352

Civil

Disputed facts were not material 
On a motion for summary judgment, a movant without the burden of proof could prevail on a claim against it if that party established facts negating an element of the claim, and the respondent party could defeat the motion by raising a genuine dispute as to the facts that were material to the motion. In an action for equitable garnishment, the insured filed a cross-claim against an insurer for bad faith failure to settle, the elements of which implicitly included an opportunity to settle. The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment establishing that the insurer had no bad faith, had no reasonable time to settle, and had made multiple policy-limit offers. The circuit court found certain facts as undisputed and entered summary judgment for the insurer, and the insured appealed. On appeal, the insured argued that certain findings lacked support in the summary judgment record. But appellate courts reviewed a summary judgment de novo and affirmed under any supporting theory. Whether the summary judgment record supported the challenged findings was irrelevant because the challenged findings were not material to insurer’s theory and the circuit court’s conclusions. The insured also argued that the insurer had an opportunity to settle by accepting a policy-limits offer but the offer did not have a draft agreement attached. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Bryan Roy Escabusa vs. Safe Auto Insurance Company 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86688 consolidated with WD86695

Criminal

No plain error review for jury review of video interview
The elements of plain error review included an evident or obvious error. That did not describe a ruling supported by case law, like allowing the jury to review a video interview during deliberations. The Court of Appeals declined plain error review and affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BENJAMIN ALLEN BODINE, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38126

Evidence

Rulings in roundup case okay 
Appellate courts reviewed circuit court rulings, not only for error, but for prejudice. When an expert’s testimony at trial departed from the expert’s testimony during discovery, circuit courts had wide discretion, meaning that appellate courts upheld rulings made on careful consideration. In a products liability claim alleging glyphosate toxicity, the appellant did not show that the circuit court’s restriction of the plaintiff’s expert on long-term studies, undisclosed during discovery, was prejudicial or an abuse of discretion. The circuit court did not err in barring as hearsay a scientific publication endorsed by an expert, when the evidence excluded was cumulative of other evidence presented by that expert, and therefore no prejudice resulted. Exceptions to the rule against hearsay included public documents “when a foundation for their admission is laid by the clerk’s testimony that they are the records which they purport to be and were prepared by the clerk in the performance of the clerk’s official duty.” On such a foundation, public records from foreign jurisdictions were admissible and caused no prejudice when they were cumulative. 
(Overview summary) 
Sharlean Gordon, Appellant, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112075

Personal injury

Evidence and verdict directors were okay in negligent hiring and supervision case 
Defendant employer employed as a security guard with a lengthy history of sex offenses and failed to address the ensuing sexual assault of a customer. An objection of “improper” did not preserve challenges based on relevance and hearsay; and, even if it did, evidence of the employee’s criminal history was relevant to foreseeability and deposition testimony constituted in-court testimony. Innkeeper duties were questions of law for the courts, not issues of fact for juries, including scope of employment and control of the employee, so the circuit court properly excluded those matters from the verdict directors. Breaches in the defendant’s duties of care, and its own policies, supported punitive damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s $177 million judgment for plaintiff. 
(Overview Summary) 
Shannon Dugan, Respondent, vs. Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency St. Louis at the Arch, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED111485

Post-conviction

Investigation was sufficient 
The movant did not show that a marital property interest in a car conferred standing for a Franks challenge to the warrant for a search of that car, so the movant did not show that the trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring a Franks challenge. On allegations of failure to investigate and use evidence, performance was substandard when the evidence would have aided a defense, and prejudice resulted when the evidence would have supported a viable defense. Employment records, showing that the victim and the movant worked together, would not have aided the defense theory, that the defendant "was misidentified as the shooter."
(Overview summary) 
Jessie L. Nelson vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86556

Alternative without death penalty was sound strategy 
Trial counsel’s strategy was all or nothing, alleging an alternate perpetrator. But trial counsel nevertheless also offered an instruction on lesser-included offenses, which gave the jury alternatives that did not carry the death penalty, which was sound strategy. Sound strategy negated the element of substandard performance. And the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and the movant testified that he would have done the same as trial counsel, which negated prejudice. 
TERRY D. MORRISON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38438

No ruling on withdrawn motion 
The movant filed an initial motion prematurely, withdrew it, and never filed another. Then the public defender filed an amended motion, the circuit court denied it, and the movant appealed. But the withdrawal of the motion constituted a voluntary dismissal, effective on filing, and the amended motion was too late to constitute a second initial motion. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and order the circuit court to dismiss the action. 
MICHAEL EUGENE SNEED, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38356