Paul C. Wilson

The case concerns 2015 Missouri statutes (sections 67.287 and 479.359.2) that imposed revenue caps on traffic fines and minimum standards for municipalities and police departments, but applied only to St. Louis County and its cities. In 2016, a circuit court declared these provisions unconstitutional under the Missouri Constitution's ban on local or special laws and issued a permanent injunction, which the Supreme Court affirmed. After the Court later adopted a rational basis test for such challenges, the state sought relief from the injunction under Rule 74.06(b)(5), arguing the change in legal analysis made continued enforcement inequitable. The circuit court denied the motion, and on appeal the Supreme Court affirmed that denial, holding that a shift in interpretive method alone does not satisfy the rule's requirements when no changed facts or circumstances render the original judgment inequitable.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Missouri v. David Thompson, the defendant was convicted of fourth-degree domestic assault and violating an order of protection after striking his ex-boyfriend with a vehicle in violation of a protective order. Thompson appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss due to lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing, rejecting his proposed lesser-included offense instruction, and submitting a corrective instruction to address inconsistent jury verdicts on the assault count. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions, holding that Thompson's claims lacked merit because the preliminary hearing did not violate his right to counsel in this instance, he had agreed to the submitted instruction, and the trial court properly exercised authority to resolve the inconsistent verdicts before discharging the jury under established precedent. The court reasoned that a jury's verdict is not binding until accepted and the jury is discharged, allowing correction of errors to ensure clarity without prejudicing the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by Scott Frey against the Missouri Department of Natural Resources after he was injured while biking on the Katy Trail, which is managed by the department. The department sought a writ of prohibition to stop the circuit court from proceeding with the case, arguing immunity under the Recreational Use Act. The Supreme Court of Missouri made the writ permanent, holding that the Act shields the department and its employees from liability because Frey entered the land without charge for recreational purposes. The court reasoned that the Act eliminates any duty of care for such landowners regarding the safety of the premises, and employees stand in the same position as the landowner regarding liability for conditions on the land.

torts & liabilityenvironment

This case involved a negligence lawsuit by Presley Karlin against UATP Springfield, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Springfield, stemming from injuries Karlin sustained at an interactive trampoline park in 2021. Urban Air moved to compel arbitration based on a Release and Indemnification Agreement containing an arbitration clause that was signed on Karlin's behalf by his mother during prior visits. The circuit court overruled the motion, but the Supreme Court of Missouri vacated that order and remanded for the motion to be sustained. The Court reasoned that the agreement included a delegation clause requiring arbitration of threshold issues concerning the scope, arbitrability, or validity of the arbitration agreement, and that Karlin had raised no specific challenge to the delegation clause itself—only to the agreement as a whole—making those questions for the arbitrator rather than the court.

proceduretorts & liability

In State of Missouri v. Richard D. Emery, the defendant was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder for intentionally killing his girlfriend K.K., her mother J.M., and her two young children after a domestic dispute escalated; he admitted the killings but disputed deliberation, which the jury rejected based on evidence including the sequence of events, 911 calls, and his post-crime actions. Emery appealed, arguing errors in striking a juror for cause, admitting evidence in the guilt and penalty phases, the prosecutor's closing argument, and alleged religious bias in imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions and death sentences, finding overwhelming evidence of deliberation as part of a plan to eliminate witnesses, no procedural errors, and that the sentences were not disproportionate given the multiple vulnerable victims and similar precedents. The court held that all statutory requirements for the death penalty were satisfied.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the initiative petition for Amendment 3 satisfied Missouri constitutional and statutory form requirements for proposing a constitutional amendment by initiative. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the petition was in proper form and valid for placement on the ballot, rejecting challenges that it failed to list every statute or constitutional provision that might be impacted. The court reasoned that article III, section 50 requires only identification of utterly inconsistent and irreconcilable existing constitutional provisions, not a broader listing of statutes, and that section 116.050.2(2) imposes no such requirement; it further noted that the Attorney General and Secretary of State had approved the form over a year earlier and that proponents had gathered sufficient verified signatures in reliance on that approval. The decision reversed the circuit court's ruling and allowed the measure to proceed.

electionsprocedure

Shawn Flaherty was convicted of second-degree domestic assault and armed criminal action after a struggle with his wife during which his revolver discharged and injured her. He sought postconviction relief under Rule 29.15, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of fourth-degree domestic assault. The motion court found counsel's performance deficient but concluded it did not prejudice Flaherty, and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed that judgment. The Court held that the motion court's findings were not clearly erroneous, emphasizing that the trial judge was best positioned to evaluate whether adding the fourth-degree instruction would have changed the outcome given the evidence of Flaherty's reckless conduct and the jury's reaction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ashley Colville, who was charged with second-degree involuntary manslaughter after a motor vehicle collision that resulted in the death of another driver. The circuit court dismissed the indictment with prejudice, finding after reviewing video evidence that Colville's alleged failure to yield and use a turn signal did not rise to the level of criminal negligence required for the offense. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the sufficiency of an indictment must be assessed solely from its four corners, without considering extrinsic evidence or deciding factual questions about whether the alleged conduct meets the elements of the crime. The Court determined that the indictment sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the offense and clearly apprised Colville of the facts constituting the charge. Accordingly, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Quinton Lucas to the approval of Amendment No. 4 in the November 2022 Missouri general election, alleging that the fiscal note summary on the ballot materially misstated the fiscal note for the measure regarding police funding. The Supreme Court of Missouri determined that the fiscal note summary did not fairly and accurately summarize the auditor’s fiscal note as required by statute. Consequently, the court ordered a new election on the amendment to be held on August 6, 2024. The decision focused solely on the accuracy of the ballot's fiscal note summary rather than the merits of the amendment or the underlying funding issues.

electionsprocedure

In this medical malpractice case, Dane Templeton sued Dr. Charles Orth and his practice after wood fragments left in his leg from a 2012 injury caused infection that required further surgery in 2016. Templeton filed suit on October 9, 2018, alleging negligence in the doctor's failure to recognize and resolve the condition during treatment that resumed in 2015. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants on statute of limitations grounds, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that the two-year limitations period under section 516.105 began running when Templeton ended the continuing care relationship by electing to follow an alternative treatment plan from another physician in early September 2016 rather than the antibiotics prescribed by Dr. Orth. Because that date was more than two years before the filing of suit, the action was time-barred as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved David Scott Nowicki's appeal of his conviction for driving while intoxicated, for which the circuit court sentenced him as a chronic offender based on four prior convictions the state claimed were intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs). The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the 1986, 1990, 1994, and 2005 convictions qualified as an IRTO under the applicable statutory definition. As a result, the court vacated the sentence enhancement and remanded the case for resentencing. The core reasoning focused on the state's failure to introduce adequate records demonstrating that the prior offenses met the criteria for IRTOs at the time they occurred, despite Nowicki not raising the issue at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Johnathan Byrd and The Gathering Tree to the validity of Missouri's Truly Agreed and Finally Passed House Bill 1606 (2022). The bill began as legislation on county financial statements but, through amendments and conference changes, added dozens of unrelated provisions including restrictions on homelessness funding and a new class C misdemeanor for unauthorized sleeping or camping on state land. The circuit court upheld the bill against claims that it violated the single subject, clear title, and original purpose requirements of article III, sections 21 and 23 of the Missouri Constitution. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the final bill contained multiple subjects not germane to one another and therefore violated the single subject rule, rendering the entire act invalid.

procedure

Dr. Anna Fitz-James filed a petition in the circuit court of Cole County seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Attorney General Andrew Bailey to approve fiscal note summaries for 11 proposed initiative petitions she had submitted to the Secretary of State. The circuit court granted a permanent writ ordering the Attorney General to approve the summaries and notify the Auditor, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court reasoned that section 116.175 limits the Attorney General's role to reviewing only the legal content and form of the fiscal note summaries prepared by the Auditor, not their substantive assessment of fiscal impacts, and that approval is a purely ministerial duty once those formal requirements are met. Because the summaries satisfied the statute's requirements, the Attorney General's refusal could not be justified, and mandamus was appropriate to compel performance of the duty.

electionsprocedure

Susan Bridegan sued Gary Turntine for injuries from a motor vehicle collision, but because she was an uninsured motorist at the time, section 303.390 barred her from recovering noneconomic damages. Bridegan challenged the statute's validity under the Missouri Constitution's jury-trial guarantee, but the circuit court rejected the challenge and, following a bench trial to which the parties had consented, awarded her only economic damages for medical bills. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment. The Court held that Bridegan had waived her right to a jury trial by consenting to a bench trial and therefore could not pursue her constitutional claim on the merits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves the State of Missouri appealing a circuit court order that suppressed evidence obtained after Nicholas Barton's warrantless arrest by Poplar Bluff police officers in Campbell, Missouri (outside their jurisdiction), in connection with two robbery investigations. The circuit court had sustained Barton's motions claiming violations of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution because the arrest occurred outside the officers' territorial authority and the crimes were not committed in their presence. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that such an arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment or the parallel state constitutional provision if supported by probable cause. The Court further reasoned that Barton's motions and hearing arguments focused solely on the jurisdictional issue and did not properly raise or preserve a challenge to the existence of probable cause.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a negligence lawsuit filed by Kristine and Dennis Hill against Mercy Rehabilitation Hospital for injuries caused by a malfunctioning hospital bed. During discovery, Mercy sought settlement documents from a subsequent motor vehicle accident involving Ms. Hill to support its defense for reducing damages under Missouri law. The circuit court ordered production of the documents, but the Hills sought a writ of prohibition claiming the documents were protected work product. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the settlement documents are not protected by the work product doctrine because they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation against Mercy and any protection was waived by disclosure to the other party in the motor vehicle case, thus quashing the preliminary writ and allowing discovery to proceed.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerns Wesley Hatmon's challenge to his Dallas County conviction for driving while intoxicated, specifically whether his 2017 pro se motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 was timely filed. Hatmon had pleaded guilty in 2014 to charges in both Laclede and Dallas Counties, with sentences involving periods of incarceration in the Department of Corrections; a written judgment in the Dallas County case was not entered until 2016. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the mandatory 180-day filing deadline under the rule cannot be waived and remanded the matter for the motion court to make a factual finding on the date of Hatmon's first delivery to the DOC on the Dallas County sentence, which controls timeliness. The court determined that prior proceedings had not resolved this predicate fact despite contradictory indications in the record, and the state's newly raised timeliness argument must be addressed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved challenges by several Missouri county commissions and public health centers to amendments in section 192.300.1(2), which limits counties' authority to enact public health ordinances regulating controlled animal feeding operations (CAFOs) by prohibiting standards that are inconsistent with, in addition to, different from, or more stringent than state laws in chapters 192, 260, 640, 643, and 644. The appellants sought a declaration that the 2019 and 2021 amendments were unconstitutional under the Right-to-Farm Amendment, along with an injunction preventing enforcement against their local air and water quality rules for CAFOs. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the state respondents, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county regulations were invalid because they imposed requirements in addition to or different from those in existing state regulations on emissions and waste management.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

In this Missouri Supreme Court case, relatives who had temporary custody of a child appealed the overruling of their motion for a new trial following an adjudication hearing on a child neglect petition, after the child was removed due to alleged abuse. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the relatives lacked standing to appeal under section 211.261 of the Juvenile Code, which exclusively governs appeals in such matters and limits them to parents, guardians, or custodians in specific categories. The reasoning centered on the statutory requirement that only enumerated parties may appeal juvenile court decisions, and the relatives, as prospective adoptive parents without finalized adoption or ongoing custodianship, did not qualify.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Carfax, Inc. seeking a sales and use tax exemption on equipment used to compile and generate Vehicle History Reports (VHRs) from data obtained from numerous external sources such as DMVs, insurers, and repair shops. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that Carfax's purchases of the disputed equipment were not exempt under sections 144.030.2(5) and 144.054.2 because the equipment was not used to "manufacture" the VHRs. The court reasoned that VHRs simply aggregate, cleanse, and extract preexisting vehicle data without creating an article with a new use, identity, and value different from the original data, and that tax exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer.

taxesbusiness & regulatory