June P. Morgan

In State v. Sherman, the appellant was convicted of attempted rape after the trial court excluded evidence that the complainant had told another person hours earlier that a different individual had raped her. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding the excluded evidence admissible under an exception in the state's rape shield statute. The court reasoned that the evidence concerned immediate surrounding circumstances of the alleged crime and qualified as res gestae because it involved closely connected events in time and place that formed part of the overall transaction. The trial court's decision to exclude the evidence based on credibility assessments was held erroneous, as the jury is responsible for weighing witness testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ray, the defendant was convicted of forcible rape under Missouri law after a trial in which the court excluded evidence that the complainant had engaged in sexual activity with one of the other alleged participants the night before the charged incident. The defendant argued that this evidence was relevant to the issues of consent and the complainant's ability to perceive and recall events, given her intoxication and the similar circumstances on both nights. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the evidence should have been admitted under the rape shield statute because it was probative of material facts under the statute's relevance provision and exceptions, rather than deciding the constitutional challenge. The court emphasized that the trial judge must allow evidence that logically tends to prove or disprove key issues like consent when the statutory criteria are met.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Winford L. Stokes, who was convicted by a jury of capital murder in the death of Pamela R. Benda and sentenced to death under Missouri statutes. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction and sentence after reviewing the trial record, which included evidence of the victim's strangulation, the defendant's fingerprints at the scene, his possession of the victim's car and watch, and his prior convictions. The court upheld the jury's findings on multiple statutory aggravating circumstances, such as a history of serious assaultive convictions, murder for monetary gain, torture or depravity, and escape from custody, while rejecting claims of error in evidentiary rulings and sentencing procedures. A separate opinion criticized the timeliness of notice regarding aggravating circumstances but did not alter the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of the appellant for forcible rape and kidnapping after he was acquitted of sodomy. The central issue was whether evidence of the complainant's sexual relations with her boyfriend shortly before the alleged incident should have been admitted at trial under the rape shield statute. The trial court excluded the evidence, but the appellate court reversed the convictions and remanded the case, holding that the evidence qualified as evidence of the immediate surrounding circumstances of the crime and was relevant to the issue of consent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Patrick Trimble, who was tried and convicted by a jury of capital murder under Missouri statutes for strangling fellow inmate Jerry Everett in the St. Charles County jail in November 1979. Trimble had been awaiting trial on other serious charges and had announced plans to commit capital murder, after which he subjected Everett to a week of physical and sexual abuse before killing him and attempting to stage the scene. The jury assessed punishment at death, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence after reviewing the trial record for errors and conducting the statutory proportionality review. The court concluded that the evidence supported the verdict, that aggravating circumstances were present, and that the death penalty was neither excessive nor disproportionate to similar cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Brown, the defendant was convicted of three counts of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sodomy and sentenced as a persistent offender. The primary issue on appeal was whether Missouri's rape shield statute, § 491.015, which generally bars evidence of a complainant's prior sexual conduct, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by preventing him from introducing evidence of the complainant's reputation for indiscriminate sexual activity or specific prior acts to show consent or motive to falsify. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding the statute constitutional on its face because prior sexual conduct is not per se relevant to consent or credibility, the statute's presumption of irrelevance with limited exceptions reasonably balances probative value against prejudice and policy interests in protecting victims, and exclusion of such evidence does not deprive a defendant of a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the division of marital property following the dissolution of a 19-year marriage, with the primary issue being how to treat the husband's non-matured TWA pension benefits valued at $11,505 under Missouri's equitable distribution statute. The trial court awarded the wife assets plus a $30,000 lump-sum payment labeled as maintenance in gross to equalize the split, while assigning the husband the pension along with the family home and primary responsibility for three minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding that pension rights constitute deferred compensation earned during the marriage and must be factored into the just division under § 452.330 after considering statutory factors such as contributions, economic circumstances, and child-rearing obligations, without finding the result inequitable.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether the City of Blue Springs could increase water and sewer rates to cover maintenance and operation costs of a new treatment plant and lines, after voters approved revenue bonds under a covenant required by state statute, in light of the Hancock Amendment's limits on new or increased taxes, licenses, or fees. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and injunction to block the rate increases and bond issuance on constitutional grounds. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the voter-approved bond authority impliedly permitted rate increases for maintenance and operations. The court reasoned that sound public policy and state statutes mandate financially sustainable operation of revenue-bond facilities, that maintenance costs must come from user revenues rather than general taxes, and that denying such increases would render the bond repayment authorization meaningless.

taxeselectionsbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over an attorneys' lien filed by a law firm after its clients discharged the firm prior to settlement in an underlying negligence action against a building's designer and constructor. The clients had entered a contingent fee agreement but terminated the relationship after rejecting settlement offers, and the firm sought fees based on that contract following a $58,000 settlement placed in escrow. The court held that the discharged attorneys were entitled to recover only on a quantum meruit basis reflecting the reasonable value of services rendered, rather than the full contractual percentage, and remanded for entry of judgment in the amount of $15,190.35 plus expenses. The reasoning emphasized public policy favoring a client's right to discharge counsel at any time without undue burden, while still compensating attorneys fairly for work performed, and rejected a strict contractual approach as inconsistent with the attorney-client relationship.

procedure

The case involved a minor injured by a lawnmower manufactured by Roper and distributed by Sears; his parents sued the companies under negligence, products liability, and warranty theories, prompting the defendants to file counterclaims alleging the father's negligent operation of the mower caused the injuries. The trial court dismissed the counterclaims based on parental immunity, but the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed that ruling. The court reaffirmed the doctrine of parental immunity on a case-by-case basis and declined to abrogate it, while holding that the immunity does not bar apportionment of fault or contribution claims among joint tortfeasors under the principles established in Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Whitehead & Kales Co.; instead, a jury should determine the relative percentages of fault so that the defendants are liable only for their proportionate share. The court also addressed related procedural issues concerning counsel disqualification but resolved them through the immunity and contribution analysis.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

The case involved the Missouri State Highway Commission seeking to forfeit a $225,000 bid bond after Hensel Phelps Construction Company, the low bidder on a joint Missouri-Tennessee bridge project, refused to execute the contract upon discovering errors in its $4.5 million bid. Hensel Phelps had investigated labor conditions and tax exemptions but failed to identify an area labor precedent requiring extra transit costs for workers or the non-exempt status of Tennessee purchases, leading to a recalculated bid $620,000 higher. The trial court ruled for the Commission, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the errors stemmed from mistaken judgment rather than clerical mistakes, that the company's pre-bid diligence was inadequate, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary or argument rulings. The court enforced the bid terms making bids irrevocable after opening and requiring forfeiture for failure to contract within fifteen days.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Aronson's Men's Stores suing Potter Electric Signal Co. for property damage from a burglary at its store, alleging that the leased local burglar alarm system was defective under theories of strict liability in tort and breach of warranty. After a jury returned a verdict for the defendant, the court affirmed the judgment in its favor. The court reasoned that a strict liability claim was unavailable because the evidence raised only questions about the reasonableness of the defendant's actions in designing and selling the system, rather than an unreasonably dangerous condition of the product itself; the warranty claim had been properly submitted and rejected by the jury.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the City of Kansas City appealing a decision by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which had found the city violated state anti-discrimination law (Chapter 296) by paying two female deputy court clerks less than male bailiffs for jobs the Commission deemed substantially equal in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The Commission ordered the city to cease the practice and pay back wages to the complainants. On review, the court reversed the Commission's ruling, holding that its findings on job responsibility were unsupported by substantial evidence or were arbitrary, because bailiffs' distinct duties in courtroom security, order maintenance, and handling potential violence were not equivalent to the clerks' roles and justified the pay differential under the Equal Pay Act standards incorporated into Missouri law. The court remanded for entry of a new judgment consistent with its opinion, emphasizing that the Commission failed to properly apply the substantial equality test to each element of the jobs.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In State v. Garrett, the defendant was charged with capital murder in the death of Agnes Grote, convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he raised multiple challenges, including that the indictment was defective for omitting the element of malice aforethought, that the grand jury selection process was improper, that certain evidence like bootprints and glass fragments was inadmissible, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The court rejected each claim, holding that the indictment adequately alleged the elements of the offense by describing the acts as unlawful, willful, knowing, deliberate, and premeditated; that the grand jury procedures complied with constitutional and statutory requirements; that the evidence was properly obtained and admitted; and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of second-degree murder and armed criminal action after a jury trial, where two co-defendants had entered guilty pleas to reduced charges under agreements to testify for the state. During voir dire, the prosecutor disclosed the co-defendants' guilty pleas and plea arrangements to the jury panel, and later obtained an order barring the defense from arguing that the state's failure to call them as witnesses implied their testimony would be unfavorable; the prosecutor knew before trial that the co-defendants were seeking to withdraw their pleas and might not testify. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the disclosures created obvious prejudice by linking the defendant to self-confessed participants in the crime and that the plain error rule applied under the circumstances, consistent with prior Missouri precedents on the issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant Bobby G. Mahaney's convictions for first-degree murder and kidnapping after he abducted and shot Donald L. Sanders during a robbery. Mahaney appealed, arguing that his confession and videotaped statements should have been suppressed because he was under the influence of alcohol and marijuana when waiving his Miranda rights, and that the jury verdicts contained inconsistencies regarding the felony murder and robbery charges. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the state met its burden to show the statements were voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence, as any intoxication did not rise to the level of mania preventing appreciation of the statements' nature and consequences. The court also found the jury instructions proper, including the instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery in the first degree.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated as a first offense, a class B misdemeanor, and sentenced to the maximum of six months imprisonment. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case because the state violated discovery rules by failing to timely disclose witness information and an alcoholic influence report, which prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense, and because the mandatory jury instruction failed to inform the jury of the full statutory range of punishment including the option of a fine. The court reasoned that late endorsement of witnesses without adequate remedy and the instruction's omission of fines (while mandating imprisonment) violated procedural requirements under the rules and § 557.036.2, necessitating a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a conviction for child molestation, where the defendant challenged the admission of incriminating statements he made to police after his arrest. The defendant had contacted his attorney, been advised to remain silent, and explicitly refused to make statements or sign anything without counsel present, but police later initiated further interrogation without counsel being provided. The trial court overruled a motion to suppress the statements, which were then used at trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings, applying Edwards v. Arizona to hold that once an accused invokes the right to counsel, further police-initiated custodial interrogation is prohibited unless the accused himself initiates communication, which did not occur here.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved an employee, David Hanch, who sued his former employer, K.F.C. National Management Corporation, for failing to provide an accurate service letter under Missouri's service letter statute after his discharge from a management position. The jury awarded the plaintiff one dollar in actual damages and nearly ten thousand dollars in punitive damages, which the trial court reduced slightly. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the employer's argument that the statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court reasoned that the statute imposes a reasonable legal duty on corporations to provide truthful information about former employees' service and termination, serving the public interest without impermissibly infringing on free speech or due process rights.

labor & employmentfree speech

The case involved Phillip Royal's convictions for capital murder and related charges stemming from a 1978 bank robbery in which a teller was abducted and killed. Royal appealed, arguing primarily that his statements to police should have been suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights after he allegedly requested counsel, along with other claims of trial error including discovery violations. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of life without parole for fifty years. The court reasoned that the trial court implicitly found Royal's testimony about requesting counsel not credible, that the statements were voluntary, and that the case was distinguishable from prior precedent requiring explicit findings where the state failed to refute such claims. Other procedural objections were rejected as not requiring reversal.

criminal lawprocedure