William Ray Price jr

The case concerned the State of Missouri's appeal of a trial court order dismissing burglary and harassment charges against respondent based on subdivisions (5) and (6) of the state's harassment statute, section 565.090.1, which the lower court found unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The charges stemmed from the respondent entering his former wife's home without permission and making repeated unwanted phone calls to her. On de novo review, the Missouri Supreme Court presumed the statute's constitutionality but examined whether its language could be narrowly construed to avoid punishing protected speech outside narrow categories like fighting words or true threats, while applying ordinary meaning to undefined terms. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal order.

criminal lawfree speech

In State v. Clark, Jermane Clark was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action based primarily on the testimony of two witnesses, including Maurice Payne, who claimed to have seen the shooting. Clark's attorney was not allowed to cross-examine Payne about his hope that testifying would lead to leniency in his own pending sentencing on unrelated burglary and theft charges before the same judge. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding this evidence of potential bias, which violated Clark's confrontation rights. The court reasoned that a witness's subjective belief in possible favorable treatment can demonstrate bias even if unfounded, and given the lack of physical evidence and credibility issues with both witnesses, the restriction prejudiced the defense by preventing the jury from fully assessing Payne's reliability.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a wrongful death claim by Ronald Sanders against neurologist Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed and his professional association, alleging that a change in medication for his wife Paulette's seizure disorder caused elevated ammonia levels, irreversible brain damage, and her eventual death in 2005. A jury awarded over $10 million in damages, including $9.2 million in non-economic damages, but the trial court applied Missouri's statutory cap under section 538.210 to reduce the non-economic portion to about $1.26 million. Sanders challenged the cap's constitutionality, while the defendants sought further reductions for prior settlements under section 537.060 and periodic payments under section 538.220. The Missouri Supreme Court held that sections 538.210 and 538.220 are constitutional, reasoning that wrongful death actions are created by statute and thus subject to legislative limits on damages without violating rights to jury trial, equal protection, or separation of powers; the court affirmed the capped judgment in part but reversed and remanded for application of the settlement reduction.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

Rickey Gurley applied for a Missouri private investigator license under a 2007 statutory scheme that made unlicensed practice a misdemeanor. The Board initially denied his application after a conference alleging a DPPA violation, but the Administrative Hearing Commission later ordered the license issued. Gurley sued in circuit court claiming the licensing statutes facially violated free speech protections under the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions and that the denial without prior hearing violated procedural due process. The circuit court dismissed the due process claim as moot once the license was granted and upheld the statutes against the free speech challenge. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding the procedural claim moot and finding no facial constitutional violation in the regulatory scheme.

business & regulatoryfree speechprocedure

In State v. Primm, the defendant appealed his convictions on ten counts of sexual abuse and related offenses against his grandnieces T.B. and R.C., both minors, based on incidents occurring in St. Louis City. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that evidence of uncharged acts in St. Louis County was properly admitted to show motive and provide context for the charged events, and that the victims' testimony provided sufficient evidence of penetration for each count of statutory rape. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the evidence or jury instructions. However, it remanded the case for a nunc pro tunc order to correct an inconsistency between the oral pronouncement and written judgment regarding the concurrency of sentences on certain counts.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned St. Louis County's establishment of eight trash collection areas in unincorporated parts of the county, under which the county awarded exclusive contracts to private haulers following a bidding process and barred other haulers from operating in those areas. Appellants, residents in the affected areas, sued to invalidate the program, claiming it violated a county charter provision requiring voter approval for districts funded by special assessments or service charges and a state statute requiring two years' notice to displaced private waste collectors. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the collection areas were not "districts" under the charter because residents contracted and paid haulers directly rather than through county-raised funds, that appellants lacked standing to enforce the notice statute, and that their Merchandising Practices Act claim was derivative and therefore also failed.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

The case involved the Missouri Association of Nurse Anesthetists, an anesthesiologist, and a certified registered nurse anesthetist challenging a 2008 letter from the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts that stated advanced practice nurses lacked the training to perform certain fluoroscopy-guided pain injections that physicians might delegate to them. The appellants claimed the letter functioned as an improperly adopted rule that violated public rulemaking procedures under section 334.125.2 and the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act, exceeded the Board's authority by defining nursing scope of practice, and caused harm by being publicized to physicians. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, but the Supreme Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Roderick Nunley, who pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, armed criminal action, forcible rape, and kidnapping, and waived jury sentencing out of concern that a jury might impose the death penalty. After remand for resentencing, Nunley moved to recall the mandate, contending that his waiver was invalid or that Ring v. Arizona and State v. Whitfield required jury fact-finding for the death sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the original guilty plea and waiver of jury sentencing remained valid after remand, rendering Ring and Whitfield inapplicable. The court further concluded that its proportionality review did not err because recent decisions on the issue were not retroactive, and therefore overruled the motion to recall the mandate.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Missouri case, Gwen Spicer sued the Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust to quiet title to real property she had owned with her late husband as tenants by the entirety, seeking to cancel a deed he executed before his death that purported to transfer a half-interest to the trust. The trial court initially granted her summary judgment in January 2008 (Judgment I), but later set that judgment aside on the trustee's motion challenging jurisdiction because the trust was not a suable entity, allowed amended pleadings, and eventually ordered enforcement of a disputed settlement. The Missouri Supreme Court held that Judgment I was a final judgment that disposed of the claims, the trial court lacked authority under Rule 75.01 to set it aside after the 30-day period expired, and all subsequent orders were void; because Spicer did not timely appeal Judgment I, the court dismissed the appeal. The core reasoning rested on Missouri rules governing finality of judgments and the timeliness of appeals, which divest the trial court of jurisdiction after 30 days absent authorized post-trial motions.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Waldrup, the defendant appealed his conviction for possessing a controlled substance under section 195.202, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed evidence of cocaine found during a search at a driver's license checkpoint. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the troopers' observations of the defendant's unusual movements justified a Terry frisk and continued detention for safety reasons. The officers' actions remained within Fourth Amendment limits as they were tailored to the reasonable suspicion of weapons or contraband, and the discovery of outstanding warrants led to a lawful arrest and a valid search incident to that arrest. The court found no error in admitting the evidence obtained from the pat-down and subsequent search of the defendant's person.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned whether E & B Granite, Inc. qualified for a sales and use tax exemption under section 144.054.2 on its purchases of raw granite slabs used to manufacture countertops that were later installed on customers' real property. The Director of Revenue denied the exemption, but the Administrative Hearing Commission granted refunds, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court held that the slabs qualified as "materials" and the countertops as "products" under the statute's plain language, which broadly exempts materials used in manufacturing any product without the limitations found in prior statutes requiring the item to be new personal property sold for final consumption. The court distinguished earlier precedent interpreting a different exemption provision and noted that title passing after installation did not remove the items from the exemption's scope.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Schroeder, William Schroeder appealed his convictions for failure to dim headlights, driving while intoxicated, and driving with a revoked license after a trooper observed his bright headlights while passing his stopped vehicle, approached to investigate, and then detected signs of intoxication including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, failed field sobriety tests, and an admission to drinking six beers. The trial court found Schroeder guilty as a chronic offender and sentenced him to five years for DWI along with concurrent penalties. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that sufficient evidence supported the headlights violation because the trooper's report indicated the bright lights glared into his eyes within 300 feet, that the initial encounter was lawful under the Fourth Amendment as based on a observed traffic violation, and that Missouri's DWI statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied given Schroeder's clear intoxication. The court also rejected claims regarding the timing of Miranda warnings, noting they were not required before field sobriety tests.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, an electrical contractor performed work for Jeffrey Houska but filed a claim for payment against Houska's estate more than two years after the work and over a year after Houska's death. The trial court initially barred the claim under Missouri's nonclaim statutes, sections 473.444 and 473.360, but later reinstated it after finding that section 473.444 violated due process by not requiring actual notice to creditors, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope. The estate sought a writ of prohibition from the Missouri Supreme Court to prevent reinstatement of the claim. The court held that section 473.444 is self-executing because it bars claims one year after death regardless of whether estate administration has begun or notice has been given, involving no state court action that would trigger due process protections, and therefore made the writ permanent.

procedureproperty

The case involved a school district and two taxpayers suing a county assessor over her property tax assessment of two power plants owned by Kansas City Power & Light Co., seeking a declaratory judgment on applicable assessment laws and a writ of mandamus to compel a higher valuation and different categorization of the property as local rather than distributable. The assessor and the company moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing to challenge another's property assessment and that the assessor's duties were discretionary rather than ministerial. The trial court overruled the motions, but the Missouri Supreme Court made permanent its preliminary writs of prohibition, halting the proceedings. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because individual taxpayers and school districts have no personal injury from another taxpayer's assessment and cannot appeal or seek review of such valuations, and further that the assessor exercised discretion in estimating market value and property classification, precluding mandamus relief.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case concerned claims by Renaissance Leasing LLC, TEAM Excavating LLC, and John Uhlmann against Vermeer Manufacturing Company and Vermeer Great Plains for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty, and breach of contract, all arising from the sale of a T1055 terrain leveler to non-party Crush Technology LLC followed by a series of purported transfers and assignments among entities controlled by Uhlmann. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed summary judgment only on Renaissance’s breach of express warranty claim and Uhlmann’s negligent misrepresentation claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to transfer of the equipment and assignment of warranty rights, while affirming summary judgment on the remaining claims and parties for lack of sufficient evidence or privity.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Stephanie Spilton, a licensed clinical social worker and Medicaid provider, whom the state of Missouri sued for Medicaid fraud after an investigation revealed she submitted 325 false claims for reimbursement for services she did not provide, in violation of section 191.905.1(1). Spilton had admitted the violations in a signed statement and interview but later asserted the Fifth Amendment in response to the state's summary judgment motion. The trial court granted summary judgment to the state on the fraud count, awarding actual damages, civil penalties, and treble damages. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Spilton knowingly violated the statute and rejecting her constitutional challenges to the penalties.

criminal lawhealthcare

Miguel Vaca was convicted of multiple armed robberies following a bifurcated trial. He sought post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, claiming his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present mental health evidence, including a psychologist's report detailing his schizophrenia, low IQ, and related conditions, during the sentencing phase despite the jury's questions on the topic. The Missouri Supreme Court held that counsel was constitutionally ineffective because the evidence was available, counsel knew of the jury's interest, and no strategic decision was made about its use. The court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. The ruling focused on the requirements for effective representation under Strickland v. Washington in a non-capital sentencing context.

criminal lawprocedure

In Rentschler v. Nixon, groups of inmates convicted of violent felonies challenged a 1990 Missouri legislative amendment that eliminated their eligibility for conditional release, claiming it violated the ex post facto clause, substantive due process, the prohibition on retrospective laws, and legislative procedural requirements under both state and federal constitutions. The trial courts upheld the statute's constitutionality and dismissed the claims. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that there is no constitutional right to conditional release protected by substantive due process, the inmates had no vested right to such release, and the procedural challenges were without merit or barred by timeliness doctrines like laches.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Western Blue Print, a company providing document automation services by scanning customers' paper documents onto CDs for electronic storage and retrieval, with fees charged per page scanned plus a flat fee per CD. The Director of Revenue audited the company and assessed sales tax on the CDs as taxable retail sales of tangible personal property under Missouri statutes. The court affirmed the Administrative Hearing Commission's ruling in favor of the company, holding that the transactions were nontaxable services. The core reasoning applied the 'true object' test from prior precedent, determining that customers sought the conversion of documents to electronic format rather than the physical CDs themselves, which served only as an incidental medium of transmission.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Skylar Manion sought a change of judge for his probation revocation hearing after pleading guilty to arson charges and being placed on probation, but the assigned judge denied the motion. The Missouri Supreme Court addressed whether probation revocation proceedings are civil or criminal in nature to determine the applicable rule for the timeliness of the change-of-judge request. The court held that such hearings are civil proceedings governed by Rule 51.05 rather than Rule 32.07, and Manion's application filed 22 days after the motion to revoke probation was timely under the 60-day filing period. As a result, the court made permanent its preliminary writ of prohibition, requiring the judge to grant the change of judge. The decision rested on precedents classifying probation revocations as civil actions separate from the original criminal case.

criminal lawprocedure