Joseph J. Simeone

The case involved a married couple who sued Jewish Hospital and a television station for invasion of privacy after attending a hospital event for in vitro fertilization participants, where they were filmed and broadcast on the news as expecting triplets via the procedure despite assurances of no publicity and their explicit refusals to be interviewed. The trial court dismissed the petition on motions from both defendants. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the plaintiffs had stated a viable claim for relief under the common-law tort of public disclosure of private facts, as their procreative medical details were not newsworthy matters of legitimate public concern and the media's actions could be found offensive to a reasonable person. The court emphasized the need to balance individual privacy interests against press freedoms at the pleading stage without resolving the merits.

free speechcivil rightsfamily lawtorts & liability

In State v. Luton, Delores Luton was charged with conspiracy to murder her husband, tried by a jury in Jefferson County after a venue change, and convicted based on evidence including a recorded conversation with an undercover agent in which she discussed hiring him to commit the killing. She appealed, claiming the state violated criminal discovery rules by failing to timely disclose a witness statement in which the witness said Luton had offered him money to lie at trial, and that the trial court erred in admitting the partially inaudible audio tape and allowing use of a transcript during opening statement and cross-examination. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the discovery violation did not require a mistrial and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tape or controlling use of the transcript, as the jury was entitled to credit the state's evidence over the defense version.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jeffrey Richards, who was charged with second degree murder in the death of Wilbur 'Jerry' Auville but convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison as a prior offender. Richards appealed, challenging the trial court's admission of his confession to police on grounds that it was involuntary due to the length and circumstances of the interrogation. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the confession was voluntary because Richards was not threatened, was allowed to sleep and use restroom facilities, and received no promises or pressure from the detectives. The opinion also found sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the medical examiner's determination of homicide as the manner of death was properly admitted. The court deferred to the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded there was no prejudicial error.

criminal law

The case involved a commercial dispute in which Ahrens & McCarron sued Mullenix Corporation and Ivan Mullenix for unpaid amounts on an open account for building materials supplied to two construction projects, plus enforcement of mechanic's liens on the properties. Mullenix counterclaimed for breach of warranty, alleging defective laminate that cracked after installation. Following a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment awarding Ahrens a net recovery of $126,490.19 (including interest and fees) and a mechanic's lien of $7,405.79 on the Bogey Hills property. On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict amounts, that jury instructions were not prejudicially erroneous, and that no other reversible errors occurred in the admission of evidence or handling of the claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a husband's appeal from a trial court's judgment in a dissolution of marriage action filed by his wife after a 23-year marriage with two emancipated adult children. The trial court divided marital assets including real estate valued at $14,130, various vehicles and equipment, awarded the wife maintenance due to her inability to maintain the marital lifestyle, found the husband had engaged in affectionate relationships with other women and destroyed $22,000 in marital property, and awarded the wife an interest in the husband's vested but not yet payable union pension plan. On appeal, the court affirmed the property valuations, division of assets, findings of misconduct, and maintenance award, but reversed the pension award because its present value was not ascertainable given the husband's age of 42 and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. The core reasoning emphasized deference to the trial court's resolution of conflicting evidence on property values and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence supporting the misconduct finding, while noting the pension could not be properly valued or divided at the time of trial.

family lawproperty

This case involves consolidated appeals by Isaac Hudson from his jury conviction for forgery, a Class C felony under Missouri law, and from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate sentence. Hudson was arrested after attempting to pick up expensive luggage at a department store using a false name and identification cards, following a suspicious phone call impersonating a deceased customer. The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of intent to defraud based on the facts presented at trial. It also affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the alleged trial errors (such as search and seizure issues and evidentiary rulings) could not be raised in a Rule 29.15 proceeding absent exceptional circumstances showing constitutional violations that were not pursued on direct appeal.

criminal lawprocedure