Case summaries for Dec. 5-11, 2025

Attorneys | Criminal | Evidence | Family | Local government | Post-conviction

Attorneys

Capacity of representation determined fees due 
“[W]hen an attorney-client relationship was formed with a client in his capacity as personal representative for an estate, any legal duty owed to the personal representative did not also extend to him in his individual capacity ‘as th[o]se capacities are distinct parties in the eyes of the law.’” The client was a possible heir. In that capacity, as a possible heir, the attorney represented the client. The client received an appointment as personal representative under supervised administration. Supervised administration required circuit court-ordered approval for certain transactions. That included contracts so continuing litigation could not, alone, impliedly ratify the attorney’s representation of the estate. That also included ownership of real estate, with concomitant liability for real property taxes, which the circuit court never approved. The circuit court awarded fees for representing the client as personal representative, but not for representing the client as a possible heir, and denied reimbursement of amounts advanced for real property taxes. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Brooke E. Harris vs. John Killian, Public Administrator as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gary Tauvar 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87791

Criminal

Circuit court control of defendant’s image discussed 
Evidence of the defendant’s neck tattoo stating “cut here” was logically relevant when the victim had her throat cut. That evidence was legally relevant because any prejudice was not unfair and was slight, especially compared to the defendant’s detailed confession. The defendant did not show any abuse of discretion when the circuit court barred the defendant from wearing the defendant’s National Guard uniform at trial. The Missouri Court of Appeals confirmed the convictions. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ERIC SCOTT NANNEY, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38776

Evidence

No plain error in admission of evidence
Evidence of uncharged conduct — “watch[ing] pornography with daddy-daughter, teen, or young themes” and allowing the minor victim to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol — was admissible as propensity evidence. The elements of plain error review included outcome-determinative error. That could not describe the admission of the victim journal entries that were cumulative of properly admitted evidence. Nor could it describe testimony describing the absence of evidence incriminating the defendant that was more probative of an offense as to which the jury acquitted the defendant. On that charge, the Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for the circuit court to correct its record on the other charge nunc pro tunc to show acquittal rather than dismissal. On the other charge, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. AARRON MATTHEW BITTICK, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38645

Family

No award to non- party 
Due process concerns required an opportunity to be heard for any person affected by an award. In an action for dissolution of marriage, a property division required the circuit court to divide the marital property between the spouses, and third parties with an interest in marital property were subject to joinder and could intervene. That did not happen, and the spouses were the only parties, yet the circuit court awarded marital property to a non-party creditor: a trust. That ruling misapplied the law, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary) 
In RE the Marriage of: James A. Starke vs. Deborah S. Starke 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87819

Local government

Official immunity established, reimbursement not established 
Summary judgment was due a party who established, beyond genuine dispute, facts that entitled that party to judgment. Public officials had official immunity from liability for negligent performance of discretionary tasks in the course of official duties, but not for ministerial tasks. The difference between ministerial and discretionary was “room whatsoever for variation in when and how a particular task can be done[.]” The task of obtaining a bond for an ambulance district was discretionary and failure to accomplish that task did not waive official immunity. Official immunity also did not apply to anything done with bad faith or malice, but that meant an intent to injure the plaintiff former employee, so it was insufficient for the plaintiff to allege merely that the defendants’ conduct was “willfully wrongful and in conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff[.]” The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendant officials, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. As to whether the district owed the plaintiff reimbursement for expenses incurred in defending criminal charges, that depended on whether the plaintiff incurred the expenses in the plaintiff’s personal or official capacity, which neither party established beyond genuine dispute. The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, so the Court of Appeals reversed that part of the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Tracy Rank vs. Pettis County Ambulance District, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87706 consolidated with WD87707

Post-conviction

Pleading was insufficient 
An evidentiary hearing was necessary only if the movant alleged facts unrefuted by the record that, if true, showed that relief was due. The movant’s theory was ineffective assistance of trial counsel by failure to call a witness. Failure to call a witness was grounds for relief only if “(1) counsel knew or should have known of the existence of the witness; (2) the witness could be located through reasonable investigation; (3) the witness would testify; and (4) the witness’s testimony would have produced a viable defense.” The movant alleged that impeachment witnesses overheard a telephone conversation showing that the victim fabricated the charge against the movant. No hearing was needed before denying relief on those allegations because they described none of the elements of ineffective assistance of trial counsel by failure to call a witness. Also, the movant failed to describe any exception to the rule barring hearsay that would make the alleged testimony admissible. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
JOHNNY LEE COOPER, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38911

Guilty plea was okay
The record supported a finding that plea counsel advised the movant of the full range of sentences possible, and the movant understood the consequences of pleading guilty, so the Missouri Court of Appeals deferred to those findings and the conclusion that the movant pleaded guilty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The elements of ineffective assistance of counsel included prejudice from failure to do what a lawyer ordinarily did, which allegations were negated by a reasonable trial strategy. Reasonable trial strategy at sentencing included omitting a witness whose testimony would have been cumulative. Failure to offer cumulative evidence never showed that counsel was ineffective. The circuit court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
AUDRA JOYCE, Petitioner-Movant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38815