Gary D. Witt

Charles Harris, a former Missouri Department of Corrections employee, sued the Department and two supervisors under the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment at the Chillicothe Correctional Center. The trial court denied a change-of-venue motion, later entered an interlocutory default judgment on liability after the defendants failed to timely answer an amended petition, and ultimately awarded compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the defendants’ challenge, holding that no final appealable judgment existed because the trial court had not yet ruled on their motion to set aside the default, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction over the venue, default, and related claims. The court also awarded Harris attorneys’ fees on appeal and remanded the fee determination to the trial court.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The Missouri Court of Appeals addressed an appeal by the Missouri Department of Corrections and two officials from a trial court award of attorneys' fees to former employee Charles Harris. Harris had obtained a default judgment on his claims of racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act, followed by a damages award after an evidentiary hearing. Appellants contended the trial court lost authority after their change-of-venue motion was deemed granted by operation of law, that the default was improperly entered, and that the court should have set it aside for good cause. The appellate court affirmed the fee award, holding that Harris remained the prevailing party because his related appeal of the underlying default judgment had been dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, and the appellants raised no challenge to the amount or reasonableness of the fees. The court also granted Harris fees on appeal and remanded the case for the trial court to determine that amount.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Eggleston, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of one count of possession of a controlled substance based on methamphetamine discovered in a vehicle he was driving during a traffic stop in Jefferson City. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Eggleston knowingly possessed the drug. The court noted that the unlabeled bottle containing the substance was found in a concealed dashboard compartment not visible from outside the vehicle, with no fingerprints, statements, or other evidence connecting Eggleston to it; the female passenger showed signs of impairment, possessed related paraphernalia, and had access to the area; and Eggleston's refusal to consent to a search could not be treated as consciousness of guilt given his right to refuse and the possibility it related to the passenger.

criminal law

Thomas Hasselbring, a nursing home employee, sought workers’ compensation benefits after an electric wheelchair ran over his left foot at work on November 3, 2021, leading to emergency surgery and above-knee amputation two days later due to acute ischemia from a preexisting closed popliteal artery aneurysm. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied benefits, finding that the workplace accident was merely a triggering or precipitating factor and that the prevailing factor in the disability was the occluded aneurysm. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s award. It held that the Commission’s decision was supported by sufficient competent evidence, particularly the opinion of the employer’s retained physician, and that the Commission had properly applied the prevailing-factor test to causation of the disability rather than treatment, without improperly considering the employee’s negligence or substituting its own medical judgment for expert testimony.

labor & employment

In Holly Hyde v. Michael Hyde, the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed a Boone County trial court decision dismissing a former wife's motion for a nunc pro tunc order to amend the maintenance provision in the parties' 2021 divorce judgment. The wife argued that language stating maintenance would terminate upon the remarriage of either party was a clerical error under Rule 74.06(a), as the parties had not discussed or agreed to termination on the husband's remarriage. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the judgment accurately reflected the signed separation agreement incorporated by the trial court, so any alleged mistake was not a clerical recording error that could be corrected at any time. Instead, it involved the creation or understanding of the agreement itself, which would fall under the one-year time limit of Rule 74.06(b) that had already expired.

family lawprocedure

In State of Missouri v. Juvonie Eugene Minor, the defendant was convicted by a jury of felony criminal nonsupport under section 568.040 for failing to pay court-ordered child support for his two children between August and October 2018, resulting in arrears over $87,000. Minor appealed, claiming the trial court erred by refusing to give the jury an instruction on the affirmative defense of good cause based on his alleged health problems and employment difficulties. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that Minor's testimony—mentioning only unspecified health issues and a brief 2018 job without medical evidence, documentation, or details tying the issues to the charged period—did not constitute substantial evidence warranting the instruction.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

Larnell McDonald appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion after a jury convicted him of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action for fatally shooting his wife in 2020. He claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to elicit more testimony from his two sisters about his character and by not investigating or retaining a mental health expert to address his reported early-onset dementia. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, concluding that counsel's decisions were reasonable strategic choices based on the evidence and observations available, that the sisters' existing testimony sufficiently covered the relevant points, and that McDonald failed to demonstrate prejudice because the sentencing court was already aware of the dementia claim and additional evidence would not have changed the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

Leesa Wiseman sued the Missouri Department of Corrections under the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging retaliation, hostile work environment, and related claims arising from her employment; after a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment in her favor awarding compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, and other relief. The Department appealed, challenging certain evidentiary rulings at trial. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the Department’s July 14, 2023 notice of appeal was untimely under the rules governing post-trial motions and amended judgments, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 84.14, the court reinstated the original July 26, 2022 judgment, vacated later amended judgments and orders, and remanded the case for an award of Wiseman’s reasonable attorney fees incurred in the appeal.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Bryan L. Oliver appealed a Cole County circuit court judgment that upheld an administrative hearing officer’s decision affirming the Missouri Family Support Division’s amended income withholding order for past-due child and spousal support. The case concerned whether FSD had correctly calculated Oliver’s arrears after his support obligations, originally set in Kansas, were transferred to Missouri for enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the hearing officer’s finding of a $2,520 arrearage was supported by competent and substantial evidence, including Kansas payment histories showing $13,165.60 credited at transfer and FSD records documenting an additional $21,689.40 paid afterward against a total accrued obligation of $37,375. The court rejected Oliver’s claim that he had overpaid, explaining that his figures improperly double-counted a portion of the Kansas credits already reflected in the agency’s summaries.

family law

Courtney J. Whiteley, an associate attorney, was discharged by her law firm employer for ineffective client communications after receiving two written warnings and despite taking steps such as sending weekly updates and routing messages to her paralegal. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied her unemployment benefits, finding misconduct connected with work. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that decision and remanded for an award of benefits. It held that the evidence showed Whiteley made genuine efforts to meet expectations and that the employer failed to prove the statutory elements of misconduct, including culpability, wrongful intent, or knowing disregard of duties; the Commission also improperly imposed heightened standards not found in the unemployment statute.

labor & employment

Timothy Davis appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion after an Alford plea to felony possession of a controlled substance, claiming his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of a defense that the residue in the baggie found on him amounted only to drug paraphernalia rather than a usable amount of methamphetamine. The motion court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. On appeal, Davis argued that counsel should also have explained a lack-of-knowledge defense regarding the substance's presence and nature. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the knowledge-based claim was not raised in the amended post-conviction motion and was therefore waived, while the paraphernalia argument presented on appeal was abandoned for lack of development.

criminal lawprocedure

Cameron D. Woods appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion after pleading guilty to the class B felony of unlawful use of a weapon for firing shots into a residence in 2019. He argued that his plea counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call an expert at the sentencing hearing to present additional evidence of his childhood physical abuse and mental health diagnoses, including PTSD, depression, and schizophrenia, which he claimed might have persuaded the court to grant probation instead of the mandatory fifteen-year prison term. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's denial of relief after an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that the sentencing record already included a mental evaluation and sentencing assessment report detailing Woods's abuse history, substance abuse, and psychiatric conditions, so the expert's testimony would not have provided materially new information or created a reasonable probability of a different sentence. It further noted that the proposed evidence could have reinforced concerns about Woods's risk to the community, distinguishing the case from the death-penalty mitigation precedents he cited.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the James A. Long Trust, in which successor trustee Sharon Long petitioned the trial court for authority to sell trust property and modify trustee appointments, prompting beneficiaries Kevin Long and other family members to file a counterpetition seeking her removal as trustee and beneficiary on grounds including breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the trust's no-contest clause. The trial court ruled that the beneficiaries' counterpetition violated the no-contest clause, terminated their beneficiary rights, and struck their pleadings for lack of standing. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the beneficiaries' challenge to that ruling. The court held that substantial deficiencies in the appellants' brief—including failures to properly articulate points relied on, state the legal reasons for claimed error, cite supporting authority, or follow Rule 84.04 requirements—prevented meaningful appellate review of the no-contest clause determination, which independently supported the trial court's judgment.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved the Estate of Patricia McDow, through personal representative Gray Birdsong, suing The Callaway Bank to recover the principal and interest on two certificates of deposit issued in 1981 that were found unmarked in a safe deposit box after the decedent's death. The trial court denied the Estate's petition for discovery of assets, ruling that the CDs had already been paid, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the Bank met its burden of proving payment through evidence such as the CDs' absence from the Bank's records of active accounts (including a 2005 reference journal and tax reports), the decedent's pattern of redeeming and reinvesting older CDs, and bank ledgers showing one CD's funds were deposited into an account in 2006. The court rejected the Estate's arguments that automatic renewals prevented any presumption of payment or that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence, finding the Bank's documentation and witness testimony sufficient to support the trial court's conclusions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Cristina Raybourn, a volunteer with limited horse experience at Changing Leads Equine Rescue (CLER), was injured when a horse named Paradise stepped on her foot while she was walking it out of a corral at the leased Woodson Hill Equestrian Center facility. She sued CLER and Woodson Hill for negligence, alleging the defendants increased the risk by asking her to perform an unfamiliar task alone. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the liability waivers Raybourn signed were valid and covered the volunteer equine activities at issue, and that Missouri’s Equine Liability Act shielded the defendants because the injury resulted from inherent risks of working with horses rather than any conduct that increased those risks beyond what the statute permits. The court noted that at the moment of injury Raybourn had only been performing routine tasks she had done before and was accompanied by another volunteer, so the additional circumstances she cited were not causally connected to the accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC) could draw on the State Road Fund to cover costs of a market-based pay plan for Department of Transportation employees that exceeded the amounts appropriated by the General Assembly for that purpose. The trial court granted MHTC judgment on the pleadings, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Article IV, section 30(b).1 of the Missouri Constitution places the entire State Road Fund under MHTC's exclusive control and expressly states that the fund "stand[s] appropriated without legislative action" for listed purposes, including employing necessary personnel to maintain the state highway system. Because the pay plan fell within those enumerated uses and sufficient funds remained in the account, the Commissioner of Administration was required to process the requested payments. The opinion relied on the plain text of the constitutional provision and a prior decision interpreting a parallel self-executing funding clause for the Conservation Commission.

labor & employment

Miguel Torres appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after being convicted of three counts of possessing unlawful items in a county jail and one count of damaging jail property. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to specific terms in the jury instructions (such as "blade," "knives," and "garrote"), for not requesting a lesser-included offense instruction, and for not objecting to an investigator's testimony interpreting video evidence of Torres making and handling weapons. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's judgment denying relief on all five points. The court reasoned that Torres did not demonstrate prejudice from counsel's alleged errors, as the jury viewed the videos and physical evidence directly, received instructions against premature conclusions, and could independently assess the testimony and facts, with counsel also challenging the evidence in closing argument.

criminal lawprocedure

Cedric Dewayne Mack appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion under Rule 29.15, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of evidence from a traffic stop that led to his DWI conviction. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's judgment after an evidentiary hearing. The court held that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, based on two independent, non-anonymous calls reporting a vehicle matching Mack's description (including license plate) driving erratically on I-35, combined with the trooper's direct observation of the vehicle stopping partially in the travel lane. Because a suppression motion would have been meritless under the standard in Navarette v. California, counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Chesher, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Henry County Circuit Court of first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a concealable firearm by a felon, based on evidence that he shot and killed G.K. outside his home following prior threats by the victim. Chesher appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by quashing his subpoenas for three witnesses and by admitting details of his prior conviction. The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District affirmed the convictions, holding that the prior conviction was both a required element of the firearm-possession charge and logically relevant to issues of identity, intent, and absence of mistake or accident, while the record supported the trial court’s rulings on the subpoenas as within its discretion.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In State of Missouri v. Kurt M. Bumby, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Boone County Circuit Court of one count of second-degree statutory sodomy under section 566.064 for engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with a minor, S.W., between March 2011 and March 2012, and sentenced to seven years in prison. Bumby appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction on that count and that the trial court erred by admitting propensity evidence from another alleged victim, G.G., and Bumby's ex-wife. The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District affirmed the judgment, holding that S.W.'s testimony describing the acts occurring roughly once a month during the relevant period, including specific details of the abuse while S.W. stayed overnight, was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even without exact dates. On the second point, the court ruled that the propensity evidence was properly admitted under Article I, section 18(c) of the Missouri Constitution because its probative value in showing a pattern of conduct and aiding timeline understanding was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, as the State used it sparingly and for its intended purpose.

criminal law