Cynthia L. Martin

The Missouri Court of Appeals case involved United Fruit & Produce Company’s appeal of a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ruling that former employee Milissa Bohanna was eligible for unemployment benefits after her separation from the company. Bohanna had worked as an accounts payable clerk since 2001, taken FMLA leave following an off-duty injury in November 2023, and was cleared by her doctor to return without restrictions on February 27, 2024; she attempted to resume work but was offered a severance package instead, and the company later sent letters directing her to pursue ADA accommodations. The court affirmed the Commission’s decision that Bohanna had been discharged rather than voluntarily quitting. It held that competent and substantial evidence supported the finding of discharge on February 27, 2024, because United Fruit did not allow her to return despite her clearance, and the Commission properly evaluated all relevant facts and circumstances rather than relying solely on the parties’ descriptions of the separation.

labor & employment

The case involved four plaintiffs who sued Monsanto after developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, alleging that prolonged exposure to glyphosate in its Roundup herbicide caused their cancer. They brought claims for strict liability based on design defect and failure to warn, as well as negligence, with one spouse also asserting a derivative loss-of-consortium claim. A Cole County jury found for the plaintiffs, and the trial court entered judgments accordingly. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed those judgments, holding that Monsanto had failed to demonstrate reversible error on any of its challenges, including the use of special masters, evidentiary rulings, punitive-damages awards, and federal preemption under FIFRA. The court adopted the preemption analysis from a related Eastern District decision and concluded that the verdicts and judgments were properly supported.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed William Aaron Thomas, Jr.'s conviction for first-degree rape or attempted rape under section 566.030. Thomas challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that his 15-year-old victim was incapable of consenting due to mental limitations. The victim, who had cerebral palsy, autism, learning disorders, and other conditions, functioned at the level of a four- or five-year-old, could not perform basic self-care or make simple decisions, and made detailed disclosures of abuse by Thomas through statements, gestures, and doll demonstrations to a hotel manager, counselor, and foster parent. The court held that this evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim lacked capacity to consent, and that expert testimony was not required on that factual issue.

criminal law

Brent Roberts was convicted of fourth-degree domestic assault after a jury found he choked his girlfriend during a July 2020 altercation in Osceola, Missouri. He appealed, arguing the trial court plainly erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense, citing evidence that the victim struck him first with a hard object while he was on top of her. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that Roberts failed to meet his burden of injecting self-defense, as the record lacked substantial evidence that he reasonably believed he faced an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or a forcible felony requiring the use of deadly force (choking) to protect himself, or that such force was necessary and proportionate under the circumstances. The trial court therefore correctly declined to submit the instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

Frank and Karen Wolfe sued Dr. Courtnye Allyson Walker and SSM Regional Health Services for medical negligence arising from a February 2019 coronary artery bypass graft surgery that resulted in sternal dehiscence and non-union; Karen Wolfe also asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the two-year statute of limitations barred the claims and was not tolled by the continuing-care exception. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the physician-patient relationship for the CABG surgery ended on March 13, 2019, when Dr. Walker released Wolfe from further follow-up care after determining the non-union was stable. Later July and August 2019 contacts concerned a new lawnmower-related injury rather than ongoing treatment for the original surgical complication, so they did not extend the limitations period. The court treated the termination date as an uncontroverted material fact that started the statute running more than two years before suit was filed.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

Jenna M. Boedecker was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, two counts of second-degree felony murder, and lesser charges of fourth-degree domestic assault and second-degree property damage, all arising from the July 2018 deaths of her two young children by hyperthermia after they were left in a hot car. On appeal, she argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the endangerment and murder convictions and that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of her methamphetamine use. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict was sufficient to prove Boedecker knowingly left the children in dangerous conditions. The court further held that Boedecker failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the methamphetamine evidence and that the properly admitted evidence of guilt was compelling in any event.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over ownership of two tracts of land in Henry County, Missouri, where Justin Brownfield challenged a trial court judgment awarding title to Darrin Heman, Angela Heman, and Creighton Storage based on adverse possession. The Hemans had taken possession of the land following an undocumented 1995 sale from Darrin’s brother D.H., during which they fenced portions, operated businesses, installed utilities, maintained the property, and treated it as their own for more than ten years with D.H.’s knowledge and without objection. Brownfield appealed, arguing that the possession was not hostile or exclusive, that various doctrines such as estoppel and the statute of frauds had been misapplied, and that the trial court used the wrong burden of proof. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the elements of adverse possession under the preponderance standard and that Brownfield’s remaining claims were either unpreserved or lacked merit.

property

Jeffrey P. Wetzel appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of permanent total disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund, claiming that a 2018 crush injury to his lower legs combined with a preexisting 1989 low back injury (which had resulted in a workers' compensation settlement for 17.5% permanent partial disability) to render him permanently and totally disabled. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the Commission's award and remanded with instructions to enter an award of benefits against the Fund. The court held that the record contained authoritative medical documentation of the preexisting disability, including 2017 orthopedic treatment records and the 1989 settlement stipulation, satisfying the statutory requirement under section 287.220.3(2)(a)a for a qualifying preexisting disability. It further concluded that the Commission had erred by requiring the rating physician to have personally reviewed those records, and that the undisputed evidence established the Fund's liability once the preexisting disability was shown.

labor & employment

In State of Missouri v. Brian L. Mefford, the defendant appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a habitual offender after a jury trial in DeKalb County. He argued that the trial court plainly erred by failing to declare a mistrial on its own when the State referenced his post-arrest silence during opening statements and witness testimony, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove he operated the vehicle while intoxicated. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the references to pre-Miranda post-arrest silence did not warrant plain-error review because the law remains unsettled on whether such silence can be used as affirmative evidence of guilt or for impeachment when a defendant raises related defenses at trial. The court also rejected the sufficiency challenge without elaboration in the published opinion.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

John C. Duvall appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his amended petition for declaratory judgment against the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, alleging that the Board denied him parole in 2016 in retaliation for maintaining his innocence at a Missouri Sex Offender Program (MOSOP) hearing, which he claimed violated his religious beliefs against falsely admitting guilt. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that inmates have no protected liberty interest in parole, and state law under section 589.040 requires sex offenders like Duvall to complete MOSOP—including admitting guilt—to become parole-eligible; because Duvall had not satisfied those criteria, his petition identified no legally protectable interest that could support declaratory relief.

criminal lawreligious liberty

In State of Missouri v. Timothy Lee Todd, Jr., the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of the class C felony of attempted burglary in the first degree. The charge arose from an August 2022 incident in which Todd, after being observed crouching on a victim's deck and trying to conceal himself, banged on and kicked her glass back door while she was inside, with a television and other valuables visible from outside. Todd appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to commit a crime inside the home. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the circumstances—including the forcible attempt to enter an occupied dwelling containing visible items of value, Todd's efforts at concealment, his recent release from the hospital without resources, and his admitted drug use—permitted a reasonable inference of intent to steal.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute over contracts for the sale of commercial real estate and medical equipment (an x-ray machine and CT scanner) in Lee's Summit, Missouri. Veeral Bhoot and related LLCs sued the sellers after inspections revealed deficiencies such as mold, missing sprinklers, and incomplete equipment, leading to claims for specific performance, breach of contract, and damages including lost rental revenues from anticipated leases. Following multiple bench trials and a jury trial, the circuit court denied specific performance, awarded damages to one plaintiff for breaches affecting two leases, and granted attorney fees and expenses to VSUJ Woods Chapel, LLC. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments in full, holding that the trial court did not err in its findings on contract remedies, the scope of damages supported by the evidence, or the reasonableness of the fee award based on the litigation's procedural history and complexity.

propertybusiness & regulatory

Jessie L. Nelson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after his 2019 convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. He alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and use employment records to impeach a witness and by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence recovered from his wife's car or request a Franks hearing. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's denial of relief. On the suppression claim, the court held that Nelson failed to establish deficient performance because he provided no authority showing he had Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search of a vehicle titled solely in his wife's name, even under marital property laws, and the record supported the motion court's findings that counsel's choices were reasonable. The court reached the same conclusion on the impeachment claim, finding no clear error in the determination that counsel's performance was not ineffective.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Missouri's appeal from a trial court order granting defendant Craig Coward a legislative continuance and automatic stay under section 510.120, which delayed his preliminary hearing in a criminal case charging first-degree rape and child endangerment until after June 1, 2024, because his attorney was a sitting state representative. The State argued that the order violated the victim's constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy disposition, that Coward was judicially estopped from invoking the statute, and that court rules on preliminary hearing dates should take precedence. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because no statute authorizes an immediate appeal from such an interlocutory order granting an automatic stay. The court further noted that the appeal was moot, as the stay had expired by its terms on the June 5, 2024 hearing date, making any relief impossible.

criminal lawprocedure

In this custody modification case, divorced parents Matthew Timothy Bethel and Kelsey Nicole Salmon disputed arrangements for their minor child L.K.B., with Bethel seeking changes to custody and support based on alleged alienation, and Salmon countering with a request to end all contact due to the child's PTSD and health risks. The trial court denied Bethel's motion, granted Salmon's by ordering no contact, and directed Bethel to reimburse his share of the child's unreimbursed medical and counseling expenses since June 2019, consistent with the prior 2019 judgment. On appeal, Bethel argued the reimbursement order exceeded the court's jurisdiction and violated due process because it was not raised in Salmon's motion to modify. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the issue had been litigated at trial with evidence presented by both parties, and that Bethel failed to preserve his jurisdictional or due process claims by not raising them in his post-trial motion or at trial, as shown by the lack of a transcript.

family lawprocedure

The Missouri Court of Appeals addressed a writ proceeding brought by the state Attorney General against a DeKalb County circuit judge. The judge had issued a preliminary writ of habeas corpus and ordered the release of inmate Victor Vickers, who sought credit for 1,072 days spent in federal custody toward his 15-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter and related offenses. Vickers had previously lost a declaratory judgment action in Cole County on the identical jail-time credit issue, with that ruling on appeal at the time. The appeals court held that the habeas court exceeded its authority and abused its discretion, because the credit question had already been finally adjudicated in another court proceeding and habeas corpus may not be used to interfere with or circumvent that final judgment. It therefore made its preliminary writ of prohibition absolute, barring the judge from ordering release or further action other than denying the habeas petition.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Warren, the defendant appealed his convictions for fourth-degree domestic assault, second-degree kidnapping, unlawful possession of a firearm (enhanced to a class C felony), unlawful use of a weapon, and three counts of armed criminal action, arising from an incident in which he held a victim at gunpoint in her apartment. Warren claimed the trial court erred by further enhancing his sentence for unlawful firearm possession under the persistent-offender provisions of section 558.016 after it had already been elevated from a class D to a class C felony under section 571.070 based on a prior dangerous-felony conviction; he also sought plain-error review of the trial court’s alleged failure to swear the jury. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the two enhancements address distinct statutory criteria and may be applied cumulatively. On the jury-oath claim, the court declined plain-error review because the docket sheet indicated the jury had been sworn, and the transcript’s silence did not establish manifest injustice.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case is an original certiorari proceeding in which the Missouri Attorney General sought review of a circuit court habeas judgment that vacated Sandra Hemme’s 1985 capital murder conviction for the 1980 killing of P.J. in Buchanan County. The Court of Appeals refused to quash the habeas record, thereby upholding the vacation of the conviction and ordering Hemme’s discharge subject to retrial within specified time limits. The court held that the habeas court properly found Hemme had established the cause-and-prejudice and manifest-injustice gateways to permit review of her Brady claims, and that the State had suppressed material exculpatory evidence—including earring-related items, three FBI reports, and evidence of another crime—thereby violating due process. Because these constitutional violations warranted habeas relief, the court declined to address alternative grounds such as actual innocence or ineffective assistance of counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a writ of prohibition sought by the Missouri Department of Corrections against Circuit Judge Daniel R. Green after B.Z. filed a contempt motion to enforce a 2017 Permanent Injunction from an earlier case (D.G. v. Department of Corrections). The injunction addressed the versions of sections 217.735.1 and 559.106.1 that the Department could apply to require lifetime supervision, including GPS monitoring, for certain sexual offenses. The judge had ordered the Department to release B.Z. from supervision within 48 hours and to show cause why it should not be held in contempt. The Court of Appeals made its preliminary writ absolute, barring the judge from enforcing the order or taking further action other than vacating it and dismissing the motion. The core reasoning was that the Department had complied with the plain terms of the Permanent Injunction by imposing lifetime supervision on B.Z.'s Category One convictions under section 566.062, so B.Z. could not establish a violation; any disagreement with the injunction's validity had to be pursued through a separate declaratory judgment action rather than contempt proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a class action lawsuit by David B. Karr against Kansas City Life Insurance Company (KCL) over universal life insurance policies, alleging breach of contract in the calculation of monthly cost of insurance (COI) rates and expense charges deducted from policy cash values; Karr claimed KCL improperly factored in non-mortality elements like profits and expenses, and failed to adjust rates based on improving mortality expectations, contrary to policy terms. A jury awarded the class approximately $28.36 million in damages after the trial court granted partial summary judgment on liability and the statute of limitations defense, certified the class, and rejected other defenses such as primary jurisdiction. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on breach liability, class certification, damages sufficiency, evidentiary issues, and related motions, but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest. The court held that the damages were sufficiently liquidated and ascertainable under the policies' contract rate, entitling Karr and the class to prejudgment interest from policy termination or surrender dates (or a set cutoff for active policies) through final judgment, and remanded solely for that calculation and an amended judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure