Albert L. Rendlen

The case concerned James Edward Moore's appeal from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for postconviction relief after convictions for rape, sodomy, and first-degree burglary based on a neighbor's identification of him as her masked assailant. Moore argued ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request blood typing and secretor status testing on semen samples despite repeated requests and available public defender funds, and postconviction testing later showed the bedsheet semen could not have come from Moore, a Type O nonsecretor. The court reversed the denial and remanded, concluding that counsel's omission prejudiced the defense as the serological evidence excluded Moore as the source of that sample. The core reasoning was that the testing was feasible at trial, the results would have altered the evidence and arguments presented, and the failure was not shown to be a reasonable strategic choice.

criminal lawprocedure

In Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., the parents of a deceased employee sued his employer and foreman alleging negligence and intentional tort after the employee died from ingesting a substance provided by the foreman while trimming trees near power lines. The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission held exclusive authority under the Workers' Compensation Law to decide whether the injury was an accident or intentional act. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding that precedent in Killian v. J & J Installers requires the Commission to make that threshold determination in the first instance, with judicial review available after an administrative award. The Court rejected multiple constitutional challenges to this jurisdictional scheme, concluding that the statute's administrative process and appellate review satisfy the open courts, due process, equal protection, jury trial, and separation of powers provisions.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned an architect's attempt to enforce a lien under Missouri's Architectural Lien Statute (§ 429.015, RSMo 1978) for unpaid services in preparing plans for rehabilitating a building that the defendant had contracted to purchase. After the defendant defaulted on financing, the property was foreclosed and sold, and the new owner used different architects and contractors to complete the work without incorporating the plaintiff's plans. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants, ruling that no lien could attach because no actual construction used the plans, the plaintiff had not contracted with the owner at the time of the agreement, and the foreclosure extinguished any potential lien. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding that the statute requires architectural services to result in actual improvement and increased value to the property, analogous to the traceability requirement in general mechanics' lien cases.

property

This case concerns a dispute between King General Contractors and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints arising from a 1984 subcontract for asbestos encapsulation and soundproofing work at the church's headquarters, which involved defective performance, extra work, and termination. In the first lawsuit (King I), the trial court dismissed most claims against the church for lack of contractual privity, abandonment of tort theories, and failure to properly plead a third-party beneficiary claim, while awarding limited damages on a quantum meruit theory; no appeal was taken. King then filed a second suit (King II) asserting third-party beneficiary breach of contract and tortious interference claims based on the same facts. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of King II, holding the claims barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction, could have been litigated in the prior action, and splitting causes of action is not permitted.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a dissolution of marriage proceeding between two physicians married in India with two daughters, in which both parties appealed the trial court's decree on custody and child support. The court affirmed the award of legal custody to the wife, finding that the 1988 statutory preference for joint custody did not apply because the petition was filed in 1987 and that the award was consistent with the children's best interests given the parents' conflicting parenting decisions and communication difficulties. On child support, the court reversed the trial court's straight-line extrapolation of the guidelines to the parties' $19,395 combined monthly income, holding that the Missouri Child Support Guidelines schedule ends at $10,000 and does not authorize extrapolation; instead, the trial court must apply the statutory factors in § 452.340, including the children's needs, the parents' resources, and the marital standard of living. The case was remanded for reconsideration of support and any post-trial changes in custody arrangements.

family law

This case involved a wrongful death claim by the survivors of Larry Oldaker, who was killed in a 1984 multi-vehicle highway accident after being struck by a car. The plaintiffs sued the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, alleging a dangerous condition on the road, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the Commission on sovereign immunity grounds in 1988, before the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in Wilkes v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission. The court held that Wilkes, which gave retrospective effect to 1985 amendments broadening the waiver of sovereign immunity under § 537.600, applies to this case because the summary judgment order was not properly final under Rule 74.01(b) and the issue was preserved. It therefore reversed the summary judgment for the Commission and remanded that claim, while affirming the jury verdict finding no fault by the other defendant driver. The core reasoning focused on the retroactive application of the statutory waiver and procedural rules allowing the appeal after final resolution of all claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Ralph E. Davis's conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence for killing his wife Susan amid escalating marital discord, protective orders, and prior threats. Davis appealed the conviction and the denial of his postconviction relief motion under Rule 29.15, arguing insufficient evidence and other errors. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and the denial of postconviction relief, finding the evidence sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and rejecting challenges to the proceedings. The court consolidated the direct appeal and postconviction claims in a single opinion upholding the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a criminal charge against defendant under Missouri's non-support statute, § 568.040, for knowingly failing to provide adequate support for his minor child between late 1988 and early 1990. The trial court dismissed the information, ruling the statute unconstitutionally vague because it did not define the term "minor." The Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute provided sufficient notice to persons of ordinary intelligence and adequate standards for enforcement. The court reasoned that "minor" carries its common-law meaning of under twenty-one years of age, which aligns with the statutory language and distinguishes it from other provisions in the same chapter that explicitly limit coverage to children under seventeen.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved the ACLU suing its former staff attorney to recover a portion of attorney's fees awarded in a successful federal civil rights lawsuit that the attorney handled while employed by the organization. The trial court granted summary judgment to the ACLU on claims including breach of contract, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the employment agreement requiring the attorney to turn over the fees was unenforceable. The court reasoned that the agreement violated Missouri statute section 484.150.1 and ethical rules prohibiting licensed attorneys from dividing fees with non-attorneys, associations, or corporations, as the ACLU's governing structure included non-lawyers. The decision emphasized that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that public policy barred enforcement of the fee-sharing arrangement.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Terry Evans's conviction for raping his nine-year-old cousin in January 1987, along with his appeal and post-conviction Rule 29.15 motion. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and the denial of post-conviction relief. The court held that Evans lacked standing to assert the physician-patient privilege to exclude his girlfriend's medical records showing gonorrhea treatment, as the privilege belonged solely to the patient. It further concluded that trial counsel's strategic decisions not to introduce certain photographs and to object on hearsay grounds rather than other bases were reasonable and caused no prejudice, given the evidence of the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Heath Wilkins' postconviction motion under Rule 24.035 challenging his guilty plea and death sentence for the 1985 first-degree murder of Nancy Allen during a convenience store robbery, which he committed at age 16. Wilkins had pleaded guilty, waived counsel, and requested the death penalty, with the trial court finding him competent after mental evaluations; the conviction and sentence had previously been affirmed on direct appeal and by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stanford v. Kentucky. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that Wilkins' pleas were knowing and voluntary, that he was competent to proceed and waive rights, and that his fourteen claims of error lacked merit or were procedurally barred. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the competency hearings, the evidence of Wilkins' understanding of the proceedings and consequences, and the absence of mental disease or defect impairing his decisions.

criminal lawprocedure

In this personal injury case from a 1986 automobile collision in St. Louis County, plaintiffs Zita and Alexander Stojkovic sued defendant Thomas Weller for actual and punitive damages after Weller ran a red light and struck their car, then fled the scene; they also sued Allstate under an uninsured motorist policy. The trial court granted a directed verdict for defendants on punitive damages and excluded evidence of Weller's intoxication and post-collision conduct, resulting in jury awards of $5,000 and $1,000 for actual damages. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed on the punitive damages issue, holding that evidence of intoxication combined with reckless driving—such as running multiple red lights, speeding, weaving, and leaving the scene—could support a jury finding of reckless indifference to others' rights under the Restatement standard, and remanded for retrial on that claim while affirming the actual damages awards.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Laws, the defendant was convicted on two counts of possessing controlled substances and sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent eight-year prison terms. The case centered on the validity of a search warrant obtained based on an affidavit from a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper, who relied on tips from a previously reliable informant about the defendant's possession and sale of cocaine and marijuana, along with the officer's own surveillance observations of suspicious activity at the defendant's property. The trial court found insufficient probable cause but upheld the warrant under the good-faith exception from United States v. Leon, while the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause under the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Illinois v. Gates. The court also rejected the defendant's claim under Franks v. Delaware that the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods, finding the motion conclusory and unsupported by offers of proof. The decision applied a practical, commonsense evaluation of the informant's veracity and the corroborating details rather than the stricter two-prong Aguilar test.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Sweet, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting and killing Missouri State Highway Patrol Trooper Russell Harper during a traffic stop, after which the jury imposed a death sentence based on aggravating circumstances including the killing of a peace officer in the line of duty and committing the crime to avoid arrest. The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed both the conviction and the denial of the defendant's postconviction relief motion. The court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the junked vehicle where the murder weapon was discovered, that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and that the death penalty was properly imposed in proportion to the crime without influence of passion or prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns Anthony Leisure's conviction for manslaughter in the 1981 car-bombing death of George Faheen, which occurred amid rival St. Louis labor union factions. Leisure was charged with capital murder but the jury found him guilty only of manslaughter after receiving instructions on capital murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, and an abandonment defense. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the manslaughter instruction was properly submitted because the defendant had requested it and that other claims regarding abandonment, jury instructions, and sentencing under the pre-1984 manslaughter statute lacked merit or were not preserved. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the conviction under the law in effect at the time of the offense and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on voir dire or related points.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kelvin Shelby Malone's appeal from the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion seeking to vacate his 1984 capital murder conviction and death sentence for the shooting death of a cab driver. The trial court had dismissed the motion after an evidentiary hearing, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the original and amended motions were neither signed nor verified by Malone himself, as required by Rule 29.15(d) and (f), despite being filed by his counsel before the June 30, 1988 deadline. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that personal verification by the movant is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite under the rule, that the unverified filings did not substantially conform to Criminal Procedure Form 40, and that the failure to properly verify by the deadline could not be cured after the fact. The court rejected arguments that counsel's actions or later attempts to supply verification could satisfy the requirements, emphasizing the plain language of the rule and precedents treating verification as essential.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Burkhardt, the defendant was convicted of possessing more than 35 grams of marijuana after troopers searched her rental car following a traffic stop for speeding on Interstate 44. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the evidence and upheld the conviction, reversing the divided court of appeals. The core reasoning was that the officers' observations of the defendant's and passenger's inconsistent accounts of their relationship and trip, combined with visible nervousness, provided sufficient basis for further inquiry and ultimately supported the validity of the search under the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1986 boat collision on the Lake of the Ozarks that killed one minor and injured another; the operator's insurer filed a declaratory judgment action against the operator and the injured parties to determine whether its policies covered the boat involved. The trial court, following a jury verdict, found no coverage, and the injured parties appealed even though the insured operator did not. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the tort claimants had standing to appeal under § 512.020 because the adverse coverage ruling directly aggrieved them through their pending damage claims against the insured, whose interests were inseparable from theirs; it distinguished contrary precedent and retransferred the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Oxford, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after escaping from an Oklahoma prison, abducting and killing a Missouri couple, and stealing their car and belongings, with the jury imposing a death sentence based on aggravating circumstances including commission of another homicide, torture and depravity of mind, and escape from custody. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence as well as the denial of the defendant's Rule 29.15 postconviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. The court held that evidence of the prior escape was admissible to show motive and that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel failed because counsel's decisions, such as not seeking another mental exam or presenting an opening statement, were reasonable trial strategies given the evidence available.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Ritterbusch, who was arrested after defendant Holt filed a municipal court complaint alleging malicious damage to an automobile; Holt later offered to withdraw the complaint if Ritterbusch paid for the damage, and when the case proceeded to trial Ritterbusch was acquitted. Ritterbusch sued for conspiracy and abuse of process, claiming the criminal proceeding was initiated for the collateral purpose of collecting a civil claim. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, and the court of appeals affirmed, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed on transfer. The court held that the allegations satisfied the elements of abuse of process under Stafford v. Muster—an improper use of process for an unauthorized objective and an improper purpose—without any requirement that the defendants have obtained a benefit, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure