The case involved a challenge by registered Missouri voters to the results of the November 2024 election approving Proposition A, an initiative that would raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2026, index it to inflation thereafter, and require employers to provide paid sick leave. Contestants claimed the ballot title's summary statement and fiscal note summary were so misleading as to create an election irregularity sufficient to invalidate the results under sections 115.555 and 115.593, and further alleged that Proposition A violated the single-subject and clear-title requirements of article III, section 50 of the Missouri Constitution. The Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that the ballot title was not unfair or insufficient and that contestants failed to meet the high burden of showing an irregularity casting doubt on the election's fairness, thereby upholding the election results as valid. The court dismissed the single-subject and clear-title claims without prejudice, holding that it lacked original jurisdiction over those issues.
In State of Missouri v. Anthony Tate, the defendant appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree assault after a jury trial, arguing insufficient evidence and that the trial court plainly erred by not issuing a corrective instruction during the State's closing argument or striking portions of a detective's testimony as inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the evidence—including video surveillance, ballistics, social media posts, and medical records showing gunshot wounds—was sufficient to support the convictions. The court further concluded that Tate failed to demonstrate any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice from the unobjected-to statements or the admission of the hospital records, as the testimony was not decisive and the jury did not rely on the unadmitted portions.
The case concerned Safeco Insurance Company's appeal from the denial of its motion to intervene in a state-court wrongful death action brought by Jeromy McCrackin against Tynan Mullen, who had been convicted in connection with the shooting death of McCrackin's son; Safeco sought intervention solely to request a stay of the tort suit until its separate federal declaratory judgment action could determine whether the homeowners policy issued to Mullen's grandmother provided coverage or a duty to defend. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. It held that Safeco satisfied the requirements of Rule 52.12(a)(2) for intervention as of right because it possessed an interest in the litigation that could be impaired if the wrongful death action proceeded without it. The court explained that an insurer facing coverage questions may protect its position by filing a declaratory judgment action and seeking a limited stay of the underlying tort case, and that denying intervention in these circumstances was error.
In State of Missouri v. Chad Thomas, the defendant appealed his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing that evidence found during a traffic stop for a broken headlight should have been suppressed because the officer unlawfully extended the detention without reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the officer's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the totality of the circumstances—including Thomas's unusual behavior when rolling down his window, inability to locate his license, statements about a possible "sharp," nervous demeanor, attempts to close the vehicle door, and movements blocking the officer's view—provided objective reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, justifying the continued detention and canine sniff that led to the discovery of the evidence. The detention lasted less than 30 minutes and was limited to the time needed to investigate the suspicion.
The case concerned challenges by property owners in lake area business districts in Camden and Miller counties to Missouri statutes (sections 67.1170, 67.1175, 67.1177, and 67.1180) that authorized creation of these districts, governed by nonprofit advisory boards elected by lodging businesses, with power to impose and spend lodging taxes on tourism promotion. The circuit court found the scheme violated the Missouri Constitution's prohibition on political subdivisions granting public money to private entities (article VI, section 23) and attempted to modify one provision to cure the defect. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the statutes, even as modified, on their face required public funds to be given to private entities and that the invalid provisions were not severable from the rest of the scheme because the creation, operation, and dissolution of the districts were inseparably connected to the unconstitutional advisory board and tax provisions. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court, declared the entire statutory scheme void, and ordered appointment of trustees to wind up and dissolve the existing districts.
The case involved Troy Jackson-Bey appealing his convictions on five counts, including first-degree murder and first-degree assault, from a June 2020 shooting during an argument over parking at a St. Louis residence. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in admitting portions of surveillance video from a motion-activated system, submitting the first-degree assault verdict director, or determining that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The court reasoned that the video evidence complied with applicable rules, the jury instructions accurately reflected the charges, and the state was not required to prove the defendant's age as an element of first-degree murder since the defendant bore the burden on any age-based mitigation claim. Jackson-Bey did not produce evidence disputing his age, and the judgment was upheld.
.jpg?width=900)