Ann K. Covington

This case involves Andrew Lyons's appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter, for which he received a death sentence and prison terms. The Missouri Supreme Court had previously affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, and the motion court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Lyons raised multiple points alleging counsel's failures regarding jury selection, proportionality review challenges, and other issues, but the court found the motion court's determinations were not clearly erroneous. The court upheld its established method of proportionality review under section 565.035.3(3) as constitutional and consistent with due process precedents, concluding that trial counsel were not ineffective for not pursuing additional studies or arguments on that issue.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Cecil Barriner, convicted in Missouri state court of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1996 killings of Irene Sisk and her granddaughter Candy Sisk during a robbery at their home. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the convictions and death sentences and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that evidence of the defendant's consensual sexual activities and possession of sexual devices was improperly admitted as character evidence in both the guilt and penalty phases because it lacked legal relevance to the charged offenses or aggravating circumstances and was unduly prejudicial. The opinion analyzed the facts showing the defendant's planning, the crime scene details including binding and sexual assault of one victim, and the improper evidentiary rulings that required reversal despite other evidence of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Smith, John Clayton Smith was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action after stabbing to death his former girlfriend Brandie Kearnes and her stepfather Wayne Hoewing following the end of his relationship with Kearnes. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences on appeal. The court reviewed the trial evidence, including the sequence of events on the night of the crimes, forensic findings, and the defendant's post-crime actions, and concluded there was no reversible error warranting reversal. A separate opinion dissented on grounds that the prosecutor should have been disqualified due to prior representation of the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved wrongful death claims by the families of two Army Reserve helicopter crew members killed when their aircraft struck unmarked power lines spanning the Osage River. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by the electric cooperative in failing to mark or warn about the lines, which blended with the background; a jury found the cooperative negligent, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and allocated comparative fault between the cooperative and the decedents. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The core reasoning was that the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury that the pilot owed the highest degree of care rather than ordinary care, and that negligence of the pilot could not be imputed to the flight engineer.

torts & liability

In Morrow v. State, Andre Morrow, who had been convicted of first-degree murder and other felonies and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence regarding his background, childhood trauma, and neighborhood violence, as well as other claims involving counsel conflicts and proportionality review. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the motion failed to allege specific facts showing that witnesses were available and would have testified or that counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland standards, and that other claims were either unpreserved, refuted by the record, or without merit under established precedent. The court emphasized that bare conclusions and lack of factual support do not entitle a movant to a hearing under Rule 29.15.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns the apportionment of a $965,000 settlement from a wrongful death lawsuit filed after James G. Parr, Jr. was killed in a motorcycle accident caused by a truck driver. The decedent's parents appealed the trial court's distribution, contending that the wife's share was excessive while their own shares were inadequate and that the court improperly factored in the work of the wife's attorneys. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment as modified, which directed payment of specified attorney's fees and expenses, then allocated $10,000 each to the two adult children, $7,500 to the mother, $10,000 to the father, and the remainder to the wife.

torts & liability

Taxpayers who owned property in two Missouri school districts sued the districts and related officials, alleging that the districts had set operating tax levies for 1994 through 1998 that exceeded the highest lawful rates permitted by section 137.073 RSMo and article X, section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution (the Hancock Amendment), which caps levies absent voter approval and requires adjustments for inflation and assessed-value growth. The trial court dismissed the individual board members, granted summary judgment to the districts, and alternatively dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the taxpayers had sufficiently pleaded their claims based on the state auditor's calculations of the tax-rate ceiling and were entitled to present evidence on the proper method of computing the "maximum authorized current levy" under the constitutional and statutory provisions; the case was remanded for further proceedings on those computations.

taxesproperty

The case involves Herbert Smulls appealing the denial of post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, in which he challenged the impartiality of multiple St. Louis County judges assigned to his proceeding following earlier disqualifications of Judge Corrigan. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a hearing before a different judge. The court held that disqualification is required when a reasonable person, aware of the proceedings, would doubt a judge's impartiality due to an appearance of impropriety, but that such decisions must be made case-by-case rather than by disqualifying an entire circuit, and that bias must stem from an extrajudicial source or improper consideration of evidence. It found the record insufficient to establish grounds for disqualifying Judge O'Brien or all county judges but identified issues with the handling of recusal motions and prior judicial statements that warranted remand.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved challenges by drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked for driving while intoxicated, contesting the constitutionality of statutes (sections 479.500 and 302.535) that authorized presiding judges to assign traffic judges acting as commissioners to hear such cases in the first instance. The appellants argued that these assignments improperly delegated judicial power without adequate de novo review by circuit or associate circuit judges selected under the Missouri Constitution, and one appellant raised additional claims regarding the validity of his arrest and related statutes. The court reversed and remanded both cases, concluding that the procedures violated due process requirements. The reasoning centered on the principle that due process demands a meaningful opportunity to challenge the commissioner's findings before an article V judge, but the immediate or next-day entry of judgment based on those findings provided insufficient time for such review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jeremy Werner's appeal from his conviction for involuntary manslaughter in the death of a toddler in his household. Werner argued that the trial court should have suppressed statements he made to police on April 18, 1996, because officers seized him without probable cause, questioned him in custody without providing Miranda warnings, and violated additional statutory protections applicable to juveniles. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that under the totality of the circumstances—including Werner's age, cognitive limitations, and the officers' actions—the police had effected an illegal seizure and custodial interrogation in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and corresponding Missouri constitutional provisions, rendering the statements inadmissible as the direct result of the unlawful detention.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a mother's appeal of a trial court decree dissolving her marriage and awarding primary custody of the couple's five-year-old daughter to the father. The mother argued that the trial court failed to make required specific findings of fact and conclusions of law under Missouri statutes addressing domestic violence in custody and visitation decisions, despite evidence of physical altercations between the parents. The court also addressed claims regarding the guardian ad litem's duties but found no reversible error on that point. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that the statutes mandate explicit findings when domestic violence has occurred to ensure the arrangement best protects the child and victim. The core reasoning centered on the statutory requirements for findings in chapter 452 proceedings and the need to remand for compliance before a custody determination can stand.

family law

The case involved Walter Barton, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing 81-year-old Gladys Kuehler in her Missouri mobile home trailer on October 9, 1991. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction and death sentence. The court found the circumstantial evidence, including Barton's presence near the time of death, his actions and statements afterward, and forensic links, sufficient to support the jury's verdict. On appeal issues concerning jury selection, pretrial publicity, and potential extraneous information about the defendant, the court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in conducting voir dire or denying a change of venue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John and Rhonda Blackstock suing Jerry Jaycox, Harbor Consultants, Michael Kohn, and Joseph Mooney over the purchase of dockominiums and related tax deductions for flood damage. The Blackstocks claimed fraud, professional negligence, and other torts after the IRS disallowed their casualty loss deductions because they did not own or have a binding agreement to purchase the docks before the flood. The trial court granted summary judgment to Jaycox based on a settlement release, directed a verdict on breach of fiduciary duty, and the jury found for Kohn and Mooney on the remaining counts. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the general release barred claims against Jaycox, the jury instructions were proper, and there was no error in the trial court's handling of the evidence and claims.

taxespropertytorts & liability

The case concerned the validity of an administrative child support modification order issued by the Division of Child Support Enforcement and deemed approved by a circuit court after 45 days without judicial action under section 454.496, a default procedure later ruled unconstitutional in Chastain v. Chastain. The trial court set aside the order on the ground that it lacked judicial approval, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the obligated parent, who filed no petition for review and made no timely challenge to the order or an enforcement lien, was estopped from attacking its validity after 15 months of inaction that affirmed the order, consistent with principles applied in State ex rel. York v. Daugherty; as a result, the administrative order was deemed effective as a judgment.

family lawprocedure

This case arose from a garnishment proceeding after Andrew Shahan obtained a negligence judgment against his half-brother Todd for injuries sustained in a car accident. Andrew sought to collect from State Farm under an auto liability policy and an umbrella policy issued to his mother and stepfather, but State Farm invoked household exclusions in both policies. The trial court in the underlying personal injury action had ruled the auto policy exclusion inapplicable and State Farm had withdrawn from defending Todd; in garnishment, the court held the exclusion did not bar recovery under the auto policy but did bar the umbrella policy. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel, res judicata, and waiver/estoppel did not prevent State Farm from asserting the household exclusion in garnishment, that the exclusion applied to the auto policy, and that Andrew could not recover under either policy.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved George Riche challenging the administrative suspension of his driver's license under Missouri statute section 302.505 after a highway patrol trooper stopped his vehicle, observed signs of intoxication, and a breath test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10%. Riche argued that the statute was unconstitutional for omitting any requirement of probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and for making age-based distinctions in its standards, and that the exclusionary rule should bar post-stop evidence. The circuit court upheld the suspension, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the exclusionary rule does not apply in these civil administrative proceedings and that the statute's provisions satisfy rational basis review under equal protection principles.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether General Motors Corporation and its affiliated subsidiaries could file consolidated Missouri corporate income tax returns for tax years 1990 through 1992. Under section 143.431.3(1), an affiliated group that filed a federal consolidated return could elect to file a Missouri consolidated return only if it derived at least fifty percent of its income from Missouri sources. The Director of Revenue denied consolidated filing status to GM Group because it fell well below the fifty-percent threshold, resulting in the denial of refund claims and the assessment of additional tax. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the fifty-percent requirement facially discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, severed the unconstitutional provision from the statute, and determined that GM Group was therefore entitled to file Missouri consolidated returns for the years in question.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case was a second disciplinary proceeding against attorney Gary M. Cupples, who was charged with violating Rule 4-8.4(c) by secretly maintaining a separate private law practice while employed full-time at the Wallace Saunders firm, using firm resources for his private clients without disclosure, and exposing the firm to potential malpractice liability and conflicts. The disciplinary hearing committee found the violations and recommended a one-year suspension, but after de novo review the Missouri Supreme Court determined that Cupples had engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct by concealing his activities and breaching duties of loyalty and candor to the firm. The court ordered his license suspended indefinitely with leave to apply for reinstatement no sooner than six months from the opinion date, considering prior discipline and aggravating factors but noting the absence of client harm as a mitigating circumstance.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Roderick Nunley's appeal from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, armed criminal action, kidnapping, and forcible rape, resulting in a death sentence for the murder. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the motion court's judgment, rejecting Nunley's claim that the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty was racially discriminatory in violation of equal protection, as that argument had been resolved against him in a related case with identical evidence. The court also denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, finding they were either unsupported by evidence at the hearing or failed to satisfy both the deficient performance and prejudice prongs under Strickland v. Washington.

criminal law

The case concerned Rufus James Ervin's conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence after he beat Leland White to death with a brick during an altercation on White's property, dragged the body, and set it on fire. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supported the jury's finding of first-degree murder and the aggravating circumstance of depravity of mind based on the brutality and circumstances of the killing.

criminal law