This opinion addresses the State’s motion for rehearing or transfer after an appellate decision in State v. Burkett, which involved a criminal prosecution in which the defendant raised self-defense. The court denied the motion, rejecting the State’s argument that the prior ruling overlooked controlling precedent on waiver of instructional plain error. It found the cited case, State v. Jackson-Bey, inapplicable because it concerned waiver of an assault verdict director rather than a self-defense instruction. The court explained that self-defense is a special negative defense under Missouri law: the defendant must inject the issue into the evidence, but the State retains the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, and omitting a supported self-defense instruction improperly relieves the State of that burden.
The case involved Richard Neil Burkett's convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action after a jury trial stemming from an altercation at a convenience store, during which Burkett pointed a gun at his brother-in-law and pulled the trigger. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The court held that the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense, even though defense counsel did not request it. The ruling rested on the principle that substantial evidence—here, Burkett's testimony that the victim first aimed a shotgun at him—required the instruction to be given automatically, and its omission left the jury without a means to evaluate the defense, thereby relieving the State of its burden to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case concerns an appeal by Holly Jessica Flood from a circuit court judgment dissolving her marriage to Brian Flood in Pemiscot County. After the Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal for failing to meet the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, she filed a motion for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing that the dismissal conflicted with Rule 84.08(a) and Goldsby v. Lombardi. The court denied the motion, ruling that Rule 84.08(a) and Goldsby address only failures to perfect an appeal, such as untimely filings, and do not apply to briefing deficiencies. It explained that appellate courts may dismiss for inadequate briefs without first allowing a cure, as strict enforcement of Rule 84.04 maintains fairness among parties and does not require overlooking mandatory procedural rules.
In this dissolution of marriage case, Clay Wilkerson appealed a trial court judgment that awarded his ex-wife, Claire Wilkerson, maintenance, child support, sole physical custody with more parenting time, and designation of her address for the children's schooling after she sought to relocate with their three minor children. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the awards of maintenance, parenting time, and the school address designation, finding they were supported by substantial evidence including the mother's primary caregiving role, financial needs, and the benefits of relocation to Fordland for housing, family support, and reduced travel. It vacated only the child support calculation, however, because it relied on the mother's outdated income figures rather than her expected gross monthly income at the time of trial. The court remanded the case with instructions to recalculate child support using accurate current income data and to explicitly state that the mother was awarded sole physical custody. All other aspects of the judgment were upheld under the standard of review for court-tried cases.
In this Missouri divorce case, Holly Jessica Flood appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Brian Flood, challenging the division of marital property and debt, child support calculations, custody arrangements, and the failure to restore her former name or include an oral agreement in the judgment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The court held that each of Wife's four points relied on violated Rule 84.04(d) by improperly combining multiple distinct claims of error—such as misapplication of law, abuse of discretion, and challenges based on the weight or sufficiency of the evidence—into single points, while also failing to explain in context why those legal reasons supported reversal. Because these deficiencies preserved nothing for appellate review, the appeal was dismissed.
In State v. Woods, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of felony stealing for taking nearly 6 million rivets valued at around $200,000 from a victim and selling them for scrap. The trial court imposed a suspended seven-year prison sentence with five years of probation and ordered Woods to pay $85,202.31 in restitution, an amount reduced from the victim's full loss due to insurance and settlements. On appeal, Woods argued that the restitution award was an abuse of discretion because of conflicting evidence and insufficient proof of the exact amount due to the offense. The Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed the unpreserved claim only for plain error and affirmed, holding that the trial court could resolve any evidentiary conflicts in the state's favor and had statutory authority under section 559.105.1 to order restitution for losses supported by the record.
