John E. Bardgett

This case concerned a paternity action brought by a mother and her minor child against the alleged father, seeking a declaration of paternity along with child support and custody. The trial court denied the father's timely request for a jury trial, conducted a bench trial, and ruled that he was the father. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the proceeding is governed by the Declaratory Judgment Act (Chapter 527), which entitles parties to a jury trial on factual issues such as paternity under § 527.090. The court reasoned that prior cases confirm declaratory judgment actions as the proper vehicle for determining paternity and related support obligations, unlike proceedings under the juvenile code or dissolution statutes where jury trials are not authorized.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Mansfield, the defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment after the body of the victim was discovered on February 10, 1980. The dispositive issue on appeal was the trial court's refusal to allow a defense alibi witness, Geneva Abbott, to testify because the defense had not disclosed her in advance as required by Rule 25.05(A)(5). The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the exclusion of this material and relevant testimony was fundamentally unfair and constituted prejudicial error. The court reasoned that any potential prejudice to the state from the nondisclosure could have been addressed through less drastic means, such as allowing the state to recall the defendant and other witnesses for further cross-examination, rather than barring the witness entirely. The court also rejected the defendant's other claims regarding jury composition and jury instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Walter Junior Blair's appeal from his conviction for capital murder and death sentence after he was hired by Larry Jackson, an inmate facing rape charges, to kill the victim Kathy Jo Allen so she could not testify against Jackson. Blair was released from jail, surveilled the victim, entered her apartment, robbed her and her boyfriend at gunpoint, and then shot her to death after forcing her to drive away. The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed alleged trial errors and the death sentence, addressing issues including the admissibility of the defendant's confession referencing his prior incarceration and reputation, jury instructions on capital murder, and whether an invalid aggravating circumstance would require reversal of the death penalty. The court considered these matters in light of precedents like Zant v. Stephens and ultimately upheld the conviction and sentence based on the sufficiency of the evidence and lack of prejudicial error.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Mannon, the defendant was convicted by a jury of conventional second-degree murder after fatally shooting Ricky Brooks at a bar following a day of heavy drinking, and he appealed on the ground that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on intoxication. The Missouri Supreme Court held that conventional second-degree murder requires proof of the specific intent to kill or do serious bodily harm, making the mental-state element of acting purposely or knowingly an essential part of the offense. The court reasoned that under § 562.076, evidence of voluntary intoxication may be considered by the jury to determine whether the defendant possessed the necessary mental state, and therefore the trial court's instruction stating that intoxication is never a defense, combined with its refusal to give the proper MAI-CR intoxication instruction, was prejudicial error. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

criminal law

This case involved the conviction of Mitchell Gresham for first-degree murder based on robbery in Missouri, resulting in a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenged the jury panel selection process in Pulaski County, arguing it did not comply with state statutes requiring a pool of at least 400 qualified jurors selected from townships proportionally and drawn via a mixed box method. The court found that the jury commissioners violated these statutes by maintaining a smaller pool, using questionnaires in files rather than a box, and allowing subjective excusals, which deprived the defendant of a properly selected impartial jury. Consequently, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant Eugene C. Kirk's conviction by a jury of first-degree robbery and his sentencing to life imprisonment as a persistent and dangerous offender. Kirk appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress identification evidence from a showup and lineup on grounds that his detention lacked probable cause and the procedures were impermissibly suggestive, along with claims about improper jury communications and sentencing authority. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the initial detention was justified by reasonable suspicion during a stolen vehicle investigation, the subsequent arrest was supported by probable cause from a victim's identification, and the identifications were not suggestive. Other points regarding jury deliberations and the applicable sentencing statute were overruled for lack of prejudice or error.

criminal lawprocedure