_by_Sandro_Halank%E2%80%93049.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State of Missouri v. Daniel Riley
Missouri Court of Appeals · 2025-06-10
In State of Missouri v. Daniel Riley, the defendant was convicted after driving without a license while impaired by THC, fentanyl, and codeine; accelerating through a yield sign at nearly 50 mph; colliding with another vehicle; and striking a teenage pedestrian, resulting in the amputation of both her legs. A jury found him guilty of second-degree assault, armed criminal action, misdemeanor assault, and driving without a license, and the trial court imposed consecutive prison sentences. On appeal, Riley argued insufficient evidence of the knowing mental state required for armed criminal action, error in denying a continuance after a late disclosure of toxicology records, and improper exclusion of evidence that the city later replaced the yield sign with a stop sign. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence supported a finding that Riley knowingly used the vehicle as a dangerous instrument, that the trial court acted within its discretion by excluding the late-disclosed evidence rather than granting a continuance, and that the sign-change evidence was unpreserved and irrelevant to his mental state.
criminal lawprocedure
Aaron Russell Roesch v. Brittany Leigh Sheffer and Peace, Love, Sold, L.L.C.
Missouri Court of Appeals · 2025-06-10
Aaron Roesch sued Brittany Sheffer and her LLC in equity, alleging an oral March 2022 agreement under which Sheffer would buy neighboring property for $27,000 and resell it to him for $29,700 about a year later; after Sheffer purchased the land, she refused to convey it at that price and instead demanded $90,000. Roesch sought a resulting trust, a constructive trust declaring him sole owner, and attorney fees. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of the oral land-sale agreement and that Roesch failed to state a constructive-trust claim because he did not allege Sheffer accepted his tendered payment, a necessary element of unjust enrichment; he also did not plead any fiduciary or confidential relationship. The resulting-trust claim was not pursued on appeal, and the attorney-fees request fell with the substantive claims.
propertyprocedure
Hoeman Capital Management v. David Robinson and 7 R Farm Company
Missouri Court of Appeals · 2025-06-10
The case involved a Missouri company, Hoeman Capital Management, suing Kansas resident David Robinson and his family’s Kansas corporation, 7 R Farm Company, for breach of a consulting agreement under which HCM claimed it earned fees for helping secure financing. The trial court entered a default judgment against Robinson and the Farm. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, holding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The court reasoned that the defendants’ limited contacts with Missouri—a few phone calls and emails initiated through a third party, with Robinson never traveling to the state—did not constitute the “transaction of business” under Missouri’s long-arm statute. It further noted that the contract at issue was between HCM and the Farm, while the unpaid services were performed for Robinson personally without any contract modification.
business & regulatoryprocedure
State of Missouri v. Tyrone Williams
Missouri Court of Appeals · 2025-05-27
The case involved Tyrone Williams, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for fatally shooting another man in St. Louis in 2021 after an earlier fight over their relationships with the same woman. Williams appealed his convictions and life sentence, raising claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness in upgrading the original second-degree murder charge, improper admission of a slowed-down video of the shooting, an erroneous “acquittal-first” closing argument by the State, and a speedy-trial violation based on 741 days of pretrial delay. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the prosecutor had discretion and factual support to raise the charge, that conditions on the video minimized any prejudice, that the closing argument was improper but not outcome-determinative, and that the delay did not violate speedy-trial rights because Williams failed to show specific, actual prejudice or intentional disadvantage to his defense.
criminal law
State of Missouri v. Monte E. Richie
Missouri Court of Appeals · 2025-05-06
In State v. Monte E. Richie, a Missouri Court of Appeals case arising from a high-speed chase that began in Illinois and ended in a crash in St. Louis, the defendant pleaded guilty to resisting arrest under section 575.150 after an Illinois officer pursued him across state lines. Richie moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it was defective because the out-of-state officer was not a “law enforcement officer” under Missouri law and the pursuit did not qualify as fresh pursuit under section 544.155. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the guilty plea waived Richie’s non-jurisdictional challenges to the sufficiency of the charging document and to the statutory interpretation of the resisting-arrest elements. The opinion notes that a valid guilty plea waives most pre-plea errors, including claims that the facts alleged failed to state an offense, and that the indictment itself adequately set forth the essential elements.
criminal lawprocedure
Vanguard Heights d/b/a Sandhurst Apartment Management v. Haitham Sourakli
Missouri Court of Appeals · 2025-05-06
Vanguard Heights sued tenant Haitham Sourakli for unlawful detainer after he remained in the apartment following the August 11, 2023 expiration of his one-year lease, which Vanguard had notified him would not renew. Sourakli argued that an addendum to the lease converted any holdover into a month-to-month tenancy that could only be terminated by a separate one-month statutory notice under section 441.060.4, which Vanguard had not provided. The trial court ruled for Vanguard and awarded possession plus damages, but the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the addendum’s explicit holdover clause created a new month-to-month tenancy, superseded conflicting provisions in the main lease, and required the statutory notice before eviction.
propertyprocedure