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

In Carr v. Anding, the plaintiff sued his former attorney for legal malpractice and fraud, claiming the attorney failed to perform promised post-conviction legal services after receiving a $500 payment. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that under Missouri law, the five-year limitations period for malpractice begins when the damage is capable of ascertainment, which occurred more than five years before the 1989 filing since the plaintiff knew by 1985 that no services had been performed. The fraud claim failed because not all elements were pleaded, and the ten-year statute for written contracts did not apply as the agreement was for services rather than payment of money.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a buyer who purchased a tractor in 1980 and later sued the seller in 1988, alleging defects and failed repair attempts. The amended petition included four counts: revocation of acceptance under the UCC, negligent repair, res ipsa loquitur, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the contract and warranty claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations in UCC § 400.2-725, which began running upon delivery and was not tolled by repair attempts, while the tort claims failed to state a viable cause of action because they were either improperly pleaded or not applicable to the facts. The court reasoned that the buyer could not transform contract or warranty disputes into tort claims to evade the limitations period and that statutes of limitations are strictly applied absent a clear exception.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves consolidated appeals by Jeffrey Arthur Whitman from his convictions on six counts including forcible rape, kidnapping, sodomy, and armed criminal action for abducting and assaulting two women at gunpoint on June 11, 1987, as well as the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate sentence. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and the denial of post-conviction relief. The court found no error in the trial court's handling of jury selection, including issues with a sleeping juror and the impartiality of two venirepersons who disclosed prior experiences with sexual offenses, concluding the jury was properly selected. It also held that defense counsel's decision not to call a witness who might have impeached one victim's testimony was a reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance, and that the trial court properly exercised discretion in denying a motion to reopen the case.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gillespie v. State, Maurice V. Gillespie appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to vacate his guilty plea and sentence for two counts of first-degree robbery, one count of first-degree burglary, and one count of armed criminal action, after he broke into a home and robbed two elderly women. He claimed his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that his attorney pressured him by refusing to cross-examine the victims and misled him to expect a total of 15 years rather than the 18 years imposed. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the plea record conclusively refuted the claims because Gillespie had stated he was satisfied with counsel and was informed that the court was not bound by any sentencing recommendations. The court reasoned that disappointed expectations of a lighter sentence do not make a plea involuntary and that the allegations were either conclusory or involved matters of trial strategy.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over ownership of two bank accounts (savings and checking) opened by Bernard G. Hysinger before his death, titled jointly with Francis J. Heeney with right of survivorship; the decedent's son and daughter-in-law petitioned the probate court to declare the accounts part of the estate, claiming the joint titling was solely for convenience in bill-paying with no intent to create survivorship rights. After a hearing, the probate division ruled the funds belonged to the estate and ordered Heeney to pay over the balance plus interest. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the accounts were validly created as statutory joint tenancies under § 362.470, all funds originated from the decedent who was competent and understood the setup, and any misunderstanding of the legal effect of the joint tenancy markings on the signature cards did not constitute grounds for rescission or override the survivorship rights. The court reasoned that Missouri law presumes the validity of such accounts absent clear evidence meeting a high threshold for mistake, and directed entry of judgment awarding the funds to Heeney as survivor.

property

This case involved a premises liability claim by Carol Ann Keenan against the Miriam Foundation, a not-for-profit thrift shop, for injuries from an assault and shooting by unknown assailants while she was donating items on the premises in a high-crime area. Keenan alleged that after employees directed her to a fenced back lot and promised assistance for safety, they left her alone, allowing the attack to occur. The trial court admitted evidence of prior crimes on the property, including thefts and purse snatchings, and the jury awarded her $35,000 in damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the prior crime evidence was relevant to establishing foreseeability and that the Foundation's undertaking to protect visitors created a duty of reasonable care under Missouri tort principles and the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involves consolidated appeals from a Missouri circuit court order modifying a 1985 dissolution decree between Paul and Sheila Echele. The trial court increased Paul's weekly child support obligation, required him to pay half the costs of the children's post-secondary education (or one-third for private schools), granted him the right to claim one child as a tax dependent, and ordered each party to bear their own attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the increased support and attorney fee rulings, finding substantial changed circumstances and no abuse of discretion, but reversed the education cost provision as indefinite and uncertain, the related child support abatement as contingent on that provision, and the tax dependency award as violating the federal Tax Reform Act. It remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

family lawtaxes

This case is an original proceeding in prohibition arising from a civil fraud lawsuit in which plaintiff Rosenthal alleged that defendants, including relators Alan and Harold Lieberman personally and their corporations, fraudulently induced him to purchase a condominium by misrepresenting the use of his deposit and construction plans. After relators invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to discovery requests concerning personal and corporate documents, the trial court sanctioned them by barring affirmative defenses, cross-claims, discovery use, and the ability to controvert plaintiff's evidence at trial on the privileged matters. The appellate court partially quashed and partially made permanent its preliminary writ, holding that the trial court had authority under precedents like State ex rel. Pulliam v. Swink to impose such sanctions to prevent unfair advantage but clarifying that relators could still seek protective orders for limited defensive discovery use. The decision rested on the principle that assertion of the privilege in civil cases does not automatically shield parties from all litigation consequences while protecting the constitutional right.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved Ann L. O'Brien, who was charged with first-degree trespass after entering an abortion clinic in St. Louis with others, refusing to leave the waiting room, and disrupting activities to protest abortions. She sought to introduce evidence supporting a necessity defense under Missouri law, arguing her actions were justified to prevent harm to unborn lives, which state law recognizes as beginning at conception. The trial court denied the motion to present the defense, found her guilty based on stipulated facts, and sentenced her to 75 days without probation. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the necessity defense was unavailable because the targeted activity was legal and not an imminent unlawful harm, consistent with prior precedent. The court also rejected claims that the evidence failed to prove the trespass elements.

abortioncriminal law

This case involved Stephen Becker's appeal from his dismissal as a corrections officer by the Missouri Department of Corrections, which was upheld by the Personnel Advisory Board and the circuit court. Becker was terminated under state law for the good of the service after he was found to have violated department rules by fraternizing with a female inmate, including delivering bicycles to her family and going on dates that involved sexual relations. The court reviewed the administrative record and affirmed the dismissal, finding substantial competent evidence supported the agency's factual determinations of misconduct. It also held that the hearing officer did not abuse discretion by denying a continuance for certain work-release documents, as the records were not shown to be material and any procedural issues did not violate due process. The court's role was limited to checking for legal errors, lack of evidence, or arbitrariness rather than reweighing facts.

labor & employmentprocedurecriminal law

The case involved Ronald L. Yancy, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action after an early-morning incident at a Sinclair service station in Kirkwood, Missouri, where he demanded money from the attendant, struck him repeatedly, took approximately $200 in a bank bag, seized the attendant's pocket knife, ordered the attendant to load and carry sixteen cartons of cigarettes to a restroom while holding the knife, and cut the phone line before fleeing. Yancy argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient because he did not possess a weapon until after the money had already been handed over, so neither first-degree robbery by means of a dangerous weapon nor armed criminal action could be sustained. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, holding that the robbery constituted a single continuing transaction that included the ongoing theft of the cigarettes and that the defendant's use of the knife to retain control and complete the taking satisfied the statutory requirement that the weapon be used "in the course of" forcible stealing. The court further found sufficient evidence to support the armed criminal action count because a felony was committed with the aid of a weapon.

criminal law

The case involved C.L. Childress-Bey appealing the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to locate and call four witnesses at his trial for illegal possession of heroin. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the allegations were conclusory, that three witnesses could only testify they did not see possession rather than disprove it, and that the employer's testimony would not rebut evidence of a drug transaction. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the motion failed to plead specific facts showing the witnesses could be located, would testify, or would provide a viable defense, and that the record did not demonstrate prejudice or a violation of constitutional rights. The court applied standards requiring factual pleadings for an evidentiary hearing and reviewed for clear error under Rule 29.15(j).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. (PESI), a Missouri corporation, which sued defendants for failing to return a $520 rent security deposit after a lease assignment, alleging fraud, violations of the Merchandising Practices Act, breach of contract, and other claims. After PESI assigned its claims to its president R. Jacobs, who was not a licensed attorney, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the corporation could not litigate without an attorney and the assignment was an attempt to circumvent that rule. The trial court dismissed the case, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that neither a corporation nor its non-attorney officer-assignee may maintain litigation in Missouri courts without representation by a licensed attorney, as corporations must act through attorneys in legal matters.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved two women, Diane Stone and Elizabeth McDonald, who were arrested and convicted under a St. Louis County ordinance for trespassing on the premises of the Regency Park Center, an office building that included an abortion clinic, by being present without the owner's express or implied consent. The trial court found them guilty based on testimony from the building owner and arresting officer, sentencing them to six months (with probation for one). On appeal, the court reversed the convictions, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants entered without consent or refused to leave upon request, as the building was open to the public with businesses and the prosecution did not establish revocation of any implied consent or pursue the refusal-to-leave theory charged in the information.

criminal lawproperty