Frank Hollingsworth

This case involves a post-conviction motion under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 to vacate a first-degree robbery conviction and 50-year sentence, based on claims of an invalid complaint, ineffective assistance of counsel due to substitution of an inexperienced attorney for the appointed experienced lawyer, a coerced confession, and denial of the trial transcript. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing after examining the files and records. The appellate court reversed and remanded, reasoning that while some claims like the complaint's validity were waived by the defendant's plea and trial participation, the ineffective counsel allegations presented issues that required further inquiry or a hearing to determine if relief was warranted.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two defendants imprisoned after pleading guilty in Jasper County Circuit Court to multiple counts of burglary and stealing; they filed a motion under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 to vacate the sentences, alleging an unlawful warrantless arrest and search by Oklahoma police, denial of counsel during preliminary proceedings and limited access to appointed counsel, and coercion of their pleas through physical beatings and threats to remove a child from an associate. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing after reviewing the files and records. The appellate court reversed and remanded, reasoning that the defendants' allegations of constitutional violations were not facially without merit and therefore required a full evidentiary hearing under Rule 27.26, with notice to the prosecutor and opportunity for testimony.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a mandamus action in which defendant Frank Hudson sought to compel plaintiff John Lee Kelley to answer specific written interrogatories in a pending personal injury lawsuit arising from an automobile collision. The interrogatories at issue asked about the plaintiff's prior injury claims or suits, witnesses to the accident known to the plaintiff or his attorneys, persons present at the scene, and any statements obtained from the defendant. The trial court had sustained objections to these interrogatories on grounds including irrelevance, privilege, and work product. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that under Civil Rules 56.01 and 57.01, the requested discovery was permissible because the rules broadly authorize such interrogatories, prior claims and witness information are relevant or likely to lead to admissible evidence, and statements given by the interrogating party are expressly discoverable and not protected as privileged work product; it therefore issued a peremptory writ requiring answers to interrogatories 20, 29, 30, 31, and 32, but not 21.

proceduretorts & liability

This was a condemnation proceeding in which Union Electric Company sought to acquire approximately 120 acres of land owned by Vernon and Cora Pfarr in St. Charles County, Missouri, for construction of an electric power plant under statutory authority. Commissioners initially assessed damages at $85,000, which the company paid into the court registry; after a jury trial on exceptions, damages were set at $66,000. The Pfarrs appealed, claiming errors in jury instructions, exclusion of evidence about income from public fishing on the property, and the company's failure to pay interest on the award from the filing date. The court held that the taking complied with constitutional and statutory requirements, found no prejudicial error in the instructions or evidence rulings, but modified the judgment to remove an award of interest to the company on the $19,000 difference between the awards, relying on the interpretation of § 523.045 in a prior precedent, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a mandamus action in which a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit arising from a car accident sought to compel the plaintiff to fully answer a pretrial interrogatory asking for the names and addresses of any known witnesses to the accident, including those identified by her attorneys. The trial court had denied the defendant's motion to require a more complete answer, ruling that witness names discovered solely by counsel during investigation were protected as privileged work product. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the information was not privileged or work product under the court's Civil Rules 56.01 and 57.01 and granted the writ, requiring the plaintiff to provide all available information even if based on hearsay. The court reasoned that these rules, modeled on federal discovery provisions and effective in 1960, replaced narrower prior statutory limits and were intended to promote broad pretrial disclosure of relevant facts to aid in the administration of justice.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Jackson, the defendant was charged with assault with intent to kill after shooting and wounding his mother-in-law during a dispute involving his estranged wife. A jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of willful and felonious assault with intent to kill without malice aforethought, resulting in a four-year prison sentence. On appeal, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on evidence of the defendant's good character. The core reasoning was that testimony regarding the defendant's reputation for being peaceful and law-abiding among his long-term coworkers constituted substantial evidence that placed his character in issue, and state court rules require such an instruction whenever good character evidence is presented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a fire allegedly caused by a defective gas range manufactured by Caloric Appliance Corporation, which destroyed the Morrows' personal property; they sued the manufacturer on a theory of implied warranty that the stove was fit for domestic use, despite lacking privity of contract. The trial court denied Caloric's motion to quash service, finding it was doing business in Missouri through its exclusive representative who maintained an office, solicited orders, and set up distributors in the state, and a jury awarded the plaintiffs $3,750. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the exercise of jurisdiction over the foreign corporation did not violate due process and that the plaintiffs could properly submit their case on implied warranty without privity. The court rejected Caloric's arguments that negligence was the only viable theory and that certain instructions should have been given, as the evidence did not support contributory negligence by the users.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Lanny Alfred Jackson, Jr., who was convicted by jury in the Circuit Court of Greene County of attempted burglary and sentenced to five years in prison. The information charged that he attempted to break into a dwelling occupied by 19-year-old Romona Kelly with intent to molest her by taking improper liberties, but he was intercepted on a fire escape outside her kitchen window. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support an inference that the defendant knew or believed a female would be present or intended to commit the acts prohibited by § 563.160, and that the jury instruction on good character erroneously required proof to a reasonable satisfaction rather than by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also noted deficiencies in the charging document that could be addressed by amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over child custody pending appeal in a divorce proceeding where both parties' claims for divorce were dismissed but custody was awarded to the wife. The husband appealed and posted a supersedeas bond, then sought to prohibit the trial court from hearing the wife's motion for temporary custody during the appeal. The court held that the trial court's jurisdiction to issue interim custody orders based on the children's welfare is not divested by the appeal bond, as the children became wards of the court upon the trial of the custody issues. Therefore, the rule in prohibition was discharged, allowing the motion to proceed.

family lawprocedure

The case was a wrongful death action brought by the plaintiff after her husband was killed when his car was struck by the defendant's bus at the intersection of Twenty-first Street and Washington Avenue in St. Louis. The plaintiff prevailed at trial on a claim that the bus driver was negligent under the humanitarian doctrine by failing to stop after becoming aware of the decedent's position of imminent peril, resulting in a $15,250 verdict. On appeal, the defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict and that two jurors had failed to disclose prior incidents during voir dire. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding no intent to deceive by the jurors.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether citizens of St. Louis County could use an initiative petition to propose an amendment to the county's zoning ordinance that would rezone a specific 225-acre tract from heavy industrial to single-family residential use. The trial court ordered the election board to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot via mandamus, but the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed that decision. The court held that the county charter requires zoning amendments to follow specific procedures, including public notice, hearings, and review by the Planning Commission, which the initiative process does not satisfy, and that the charter explicitly prohibits referendum procedures for zoning changes.

propertyelectionsbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned defendant Jerry Spraggins' appeal from a first-degree robbery conviction under Missouri law after a jury trial in St. Louis Circuit Court, where he was also found to have a prior felony conviction for escape and was sentenced to seven years in prison. The court reviewed the record for alleged errors in denying motions for acquittal, the sufficiency of the state's evidence based on eyewitness identifications by two victims, and challenges to jury instructions and other trial rulings. It held that the evidence, including consistent in-court and lineup identifications plus photo identifications, was sufficient to support the verdict and that most assignments of error failed to preserve issues under court rules requiring detailed particularity in the new-trial motion. The court also found the instructions adequately stated the burden of proof and other legal standards. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McBride, the defendant was charged with second-degree burglary and stealing from a dry cleaner's shop, along with prior felony convictions under the habitual criminal act. The jury convicted him of both offenses, and the trial court imposed consecutive two-year sentences after finding the priors. On appeal, the court affirmed the burglary conviction but reversed the stealing conviction. The core reasoning was that the jury instructions improperly allowed conviction for stealing any property from the shop rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant stole the specific items listed in the information.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence claim for personal injuries arising from a car collision at an uncontrolled intersection in St. Louis, where the plaintiff was a passenger in one vehicle and the defendant drove the other. A jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that defendant's Instruction No. 3 on the duty to keep a lookout was erroneous. The court held that the instruction was prejudicially erroneous because it was confusing and misleading: it could be read to permit a verdict for the defendant based on a single look both ways as he approached the intersection, without requiring the continuous exercise of the highest degree of care to see and avoid what was reasonably observable, and it conflicted with the plaintiff's instruction on the same issue. The judgment was therefore reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant William Elmer Knicker, who was charged with second-degree burglary and stealing from a drug store in St. Louis, along with allegations of prior felony convictions under the habitual criminal act. After a jury trial where he was found guilty only of stealing property valued at least fifty dollars, the court determined his prior convictions and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant raised issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence, conflicts in jury instructions, and due process, but the court found no merit in these claims, noting that the evidence supported the verdict and the instructions were consistent, and affirmed the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former employee who sued her employer, Montgomery Ward, for actual and punitive damages after the company allegedly refused to provide a required "service letter" following her discharge, as mandated by Missouri statute § 290.140. The plaintiff had sent a letter to the company president expressing distress over her termination without cause and requesting a letter of recommendation to aid in obtaining new employment. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's letter did not constitute a valid written request under the statute because it failed to seek the specific details required—namely, the nature and character of her service, its duration, and the cause of her discharge. Instead, the court found the letter sought only a recommendation, which is distinct from the statutory service letter obligation.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a collision on a Missouri highway where a southbound tractor-trailer truck struck a horse ridden by the plaintiff, resulting in the horse's death and personal injuries to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the truck's owner-operator for damages, and after a change of venue, a jury awarded $15,000 for injuries and $500 for the horse. On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to make a submissible case, was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and that errors occurred in jury instructions, closing arguments, judicial comments, and admission of hospital records. The court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, found a submissible case without contributory negligence as a matter of law, and determined that no prejudicial errors warranted reversal in the trial proceedings or evidence handling. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

torts & liability

This case involved a Delaware corporation engaged in consumer lending that challenged Missouri franchise tax assessments imposed by the State Tax Commission on its Missouri operations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the Commission's method of calculating the tax—which included certain assets related to subsidiaries—violated due process under the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions. On appeal, the court held that the plain language of § 147.010 RSMo did not authorize including in the parent's tax base assets owned and employed in Missouri by the plaintiff's separately taxed subsidiaries, reversing the constitutional ruling on statutory grounds. The court also limited the scope of the injunction against future assessments, noting that each tax year is independent and the Commission retains authority to apply the statute to different facts. The judgment was reversed and remanded for modification consistent with the opinion.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In Mitchell v. Mosher, a minor plaintiff sued for personal injuries from a head-on car collision in which he was a passenger, naming the drivers of the other vehicles and a stopped car as defendants. The jury returned a $2,500 verdict for the plaintiff against two defendants, with a directed verdict for the third, and the plaintiff appealed on grounds that the award was grossly inadequate given his claimed back fractures, hospitalization, and lost wages. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the verdict was within the range of reasonably possible jury findings on the extent of injury and earnings loss and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding it.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an original mandamus proceeding in which the relator sought to compel the probate judge and clerk of Shelby County to publish statutory notices of an estate administrator's appointment and to creditors in The Clarence Courier newspaper, as designated by the administrator under § 473.033. The respondents refused on the ground that the newspaper had forfeited its qualification under § 493.050 by voluntarily suspending publication for one week in December 1960 to allow the publishers a vacation, despite having otherwise met all statutory requirements for many years. The court held that the Courier remained qualified to publish legal notices and made the writ peremptory. Its reasoning was that a single, brief, customary suspension that was promptly abandoned did not materially impair the paper's efficacy or contravene the statute's purposes, particularly absent any showing of harm and in light of potential hardship to vested rights in similar publications.

procedure