Robert G. Dowd

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 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

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

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

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 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

In this criminal case, Ronald Marr was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of armed criminal action for fatally shooting K.H. and her two young daughters in their St. Louis home in February 2021, and he received life sentences without parole plus consecutive prison terms. Marr appealed, claiming the trial court wrongly admitted evidence of his prior disturbances at the victims’ residence on February 2 and threats he made to his ex-girlfriend, arguing this was improper propensity evidence. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that evidence of the February 2 events and Marr’s threats specifically against K.H. was admissible because it showed his intent and animus toward the victim and helped provide a coherent picture of the events leading to the crimes. The court further found that any error in admitting testimony about threats to the ex-girlfriend was harmless, as it was not outcome-determinative given the strength of the other properly admitted evidence, including physical proof, witness accounts, and Marr’s post-arrest statements.

criminal lawprocedure

Robert A. Thomas appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after his conviction for driving while intoxicated. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of his breathalyzer test results, which showed a blood alcohol content of .208, on the ground that an officer’s use of hand sanitizer shortly before administering the test rendered the results unreliable. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court’s denial of relief. The court held that counsel’s choice to forgo an admissibility challenge and instead attack the test’s weight through cross-examination was reasonable trial strategy, as counsel reasonably believed the results were likely admissible and did not want to reveal his line of questioning in advance. The court further concluded that Thomas failed to show prejudice because other evidence of intoxication, including his erratic driving, physical signs of impairment, failed field sobriety test indicators, and admission to drinking four beers, was overwhelming.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Missouri dissolution-of-marriage case, Aylicia Mickow appealed the trial court’s judgment awarding the parties joint legal and joint physical custody of their two children and dividing their marital property, including assigning values of $270,000 to the Crestview Drive home and $80,000 to the Blair Street home. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full. It held that the trial court had addressed all relevant best-interest factors under section 452.375 when ordering joint custody and that the custody arrangement was not against the weight of the evidence. The court further concluded that the property valuations fell within the range of conflicting evidence presented at trial and were therefore within the trial court’s discretion to resolve credibility and value disputes.

family lawproperty

In this post-conviction case, Marlo R. James sought to set aside his 2021 guilty pleas to felonies of unlawful firearm possession and drug possession, plus misdemeanors, stemming from a traffic stop where police found fentanyl and loaded guns in his vehicle. James argued that plea counsel was ineffective by promising he would receive a 120-day drug treatment program rather than prison if he pleaded guilty, and that he would have gone to trial otherwise. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court’s denial of relief after an evidentiary hearing. The court held that James failed to show ineffective assistance because the motion court credited counsel’s testimony that he made no guarantee and only noted a good chance of treatment given the State’s neutral stance, while the record showed James repeatedly acknowledged that sentencing was solely the court’s decision and that no promises had been made to induce his pleas.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In Shannon Dugan v. Hyatt Corporation, the plaintiff sued the hotel after one of its security guards used a master key to enter her room at the Hyatt Regency St. Louis at the Arch in April 2016 and sexually assaulted her while she slept; she asserted claims for negligent hiring, negligent supervision of the guard, and negligent training and supervision of other security employees. A jury awarded Dugan $28 million in compensatory damages and $149 million in punitive damages. On appeal, Hyatt challenged the admission of evidence regarding the guard’s prior arrest and investigations for sex offenses, the omission of certain facts from the negligent-supervision verdict directors, and the submission of punitive damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that Hyatt’s evidentiary objection was not preserved and the evidence was relevant, that the instructions correctly omitted matters already resolved by the trial court’s unchallenged duty determination, and that Hyatt’s pre-assault policy violations and post-assault interference with the police investigation provided sufficient grounds for punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In J.A.W. v. V.W., a mother sought a full order of protection under Missouri’s Child Protection Orders Act on behalf of her six-year-old son after discovering abrasions and bruises on his neck, back, and inner thigh following time spent with the child’s paternal grandfather. The trial court denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence that the grandfather had committed battery or sexual assault. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the battery claim, holding that the trial court’s finding was against the weight of the evidence because the grandfather undisputedly caused the marks by biting and sucking on the child’s skin, and the record established that he acted purposely or knowingly. The court remanded with instructions to enter the full order of protection while upholding the trial court’s rejection of the sexual assault allegation.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

In this marriage dissolution case, Francis Wolo obtained a default judgment against Christina Wolo in April 2021 after she failed to respond to his petition, resulting in orders on custody, child support, and property division. Christina later moved to set aside the judgment under Rule 74.06(b), arguing it was void due to defective service because the process server was not properly appointed and the documents were left with a non-resident at her home. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of her motion, holding that she was estopped from challenging service or personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that by filing and litigating a motion to modify the judgment in November 2021—without questioning its validity or the court's authority—she had implicitly recognized the judgment's validity, barring her later attack.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Mobile National Development Co., owner of a Missouri mobile home park, and cable provider Spectrum Mid-America (successor to Charter) over a 2003 contract granting Charter exclusive access to install and provide cable services to residents in exchange for a percentage of revenue. After the FCC's 2007 order prohibited exclusivity clauses in such contracts with multiple-dwelling units, Charter stopped payments in 2020; Mobile sued for breach of the 2003 contract and a related 1990 agreement, while Charter counterclaimed for restitution and a declaration that the exclusivity provision was void. The trial court granted summary judgment to Charter, voiding the entire 2003 contract and rejecting Mobile's claims under the 1990 agreement due to an integration clause. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that the exclusivity language violated the FCC order and that the 1990 agreement did not survive, but reversed the total invalidation of the 2003 contract, instead severing only the revenue-sharing addendum and the words "or compete" from the access provision so that the remaining terms allowing non-exclusive access would remain in effect.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In State of Missouri v. Dustin E. Homan, the defendant entered an Alford plea to two counts of felony domestic assault after a recorded incident in which he violently attacked his ex-wife and father in front of his children, causing serious injury to the father, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of seven and four years. Homan appealed, claiming the court erred by denying his motion to continue the sentencing hearing, relying on unproven allegations in the victims’ statements and other evidence, considering his lack of remorse despite the Alford plea, and imposing maximum consecutive sentences that were disproportionate to the crimes. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit plain error, that lack of remorse remains a permissible sentencing factor even after an Alford plea, and that the sentences were not grossly disproportionate given the violence, injuries, and victims’ safety concerns.

criminal lawprocedure

The Missouri Court of Appeals addressed a lawsuit filed by Engineered Sales Acquisition Corporation (ESI) against Missouri American Water Company (MAWC) and its insurer, Travelers, seeking damages for 2017 flooding that allegedly caused over $100,000 in surface and underground harm to leased property. The trial court had dismissed the petition with prejudice on statute-of-limitations grounds, finding the 2023 filing untimely under the five-year limit and rejecting ESI’s claims of an agreement to waive or toll the deadline until an expert assessed underground damage, as well as any direct claim against Travelers. The appellate court reversed the dismissal against MAWC, holding that ESI’s petition, though minimally, sufficiently alleged an agreement to toll the limitations period pending the expert report, precluding dismissal at the pleading stage. It affirmed the dismissal against Travelers, however, because ESI failed to plead facts establishing an exception to the rule barring direct actions against an insured’s liability insurer. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the claims against MAWC.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

Robert K. Bennett was fired by Cord Moving and Storage after three preventable accidents while driving a company truck in June and August 2023. He appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s denial of unemployment benefits, claiming insufficient evidence of intentional misconduct, improper burden-shifting by the Commission, and inconsistent enforcement of Cord’s rules. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision, finding that Bennett’s repeated collisions—without taking precautions such as familiarizing himself with the vehicle or addressing obstructed views—demonstrated carelessness or negligence sufficient to constitute “knowing misconduct” under section 288.030.1(23)(b) of the Missouri Employment Security Law. The court held that Cord met its burden to prove misconduct with competent evidence and that Bennett’s arguments about inconsistent rule enforcement were irrelevant because the finding rested on negligence rather than a specific policy violation.

labor & employment

Anthony L. Sinks was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for fatally shooting his ex-wife’s fiancé at a Hardee’s restaurant in Cape Girardeau County in 2018, and he received consecutive sentences of life without parole and thirty years. Following affirmance of the convictions on direct appeal, Sinks sought Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to assert a speedy-trial violation, advising him to waive a jury trial, and not pursuing a plea deal. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court’s denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the nearly three-year delay was largely attributable to COVID-19, Sinks never asserted his speedy-trial right, and he showed no prejudice; that the jury waiver was a reasonable strategic choice after Sinks received full advisements and executed a written waiver; and that declining to seek a plea was also sound strategy given Sinks’s consistent self-defense claim and the absence of any offer from the State.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners in a Cape Girardeau subdivision, the Merritts and the Wilsons, over an easement across the Merritts’ lot that the Wilsons used to access the back of their property. The Merritts sued to enforce what they claimed was an oral agreement reached in September 2020, and alternatively a written agreement via February 2021 emails, under which the Wilsons would give up the easement in exchange for a portion of the Merritts’ land and payment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Wilsons, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that no enforceable contract existed because the parties never reached a meeting of the minds on key terms in either the oral discussions or the email exchanges, which reflected only ongoing negotiations with varying proposals, and the statute of frauds independently barred the claimed oral agreement.

property

This appeal arose from a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Danny Dannenhauer and his family trust against attorney John Briscoe and his firm for alleged negligence in handling a 2012 real estate deed transferring a 330-acre farm, and against the Wasinger Parham law firm for failing to timely advise Dannenhauer of a potential claim against Briscoe. The underlying dispute began in 2014 when a granddaughter sued to set aside the deed on grounds including lack of authority under a power of attorney and undue influence; that suit succeeded in a 2017 judgment (affirmed after retrial in 2019). The trial court granted summary judgment to Briscoe on statute-of-limitations grounds, finding the claim accrued in 2014 when Dannenhauer was served with the granddaughter’s petition, and later granted JNOV to Wasinger Parham after a $750,000 verdict against it. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, holding that a reasonably prudent layperson would not have been put on notice of malpractice and damages merely by service of the 2014 petition (one claim of which was unrelated to Briscoe’s work), and that damages were not ascertainable until the 2017 judgment voiding the deed; it therefore affirmed the JNOV for Wasinger Parham and remanded for adjudication of the claims against Briscoe on the merits.

propertyproceduretorts & liability