Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sneil, LLC sought to quiet title to certain property and to eject Tybe Learning Center, Inc. and Regions Bank from that property. The circuit court found in favor of Tybe and Regions, concluding that Sneil failed to provide adequate notice to Tybe and Regions of their right of redemption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a purchaser is authorized to acquire a collector's deed for property purchased at tax sale one year after the sale; (2) accordingly, in order for the purchaser to send timely notice to the owner of that property of the right to redeem said property pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 140.405, the purchaser must send said notice ninety days prior to the one-year anniversary of the tax sale, and the notice must only inform the owner of the right to redeem the property; and (3) because Sneil did not meet these requirements, its notice was untimely pursuant to section 140.405. View "Sneil, LLC v. TYBE Learning Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. Defendant timely filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for not calling his codefendant in the crime (Codefendant) at trial, alleging Codefendant would have testified that Defendant did not act as Codefendant's accomplice in the robbery. The motion court granted Defendant's motion for post-conviction relief. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call Codefendant as a witness, and therefore, the motion court's judgment was not clearly erroneous. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, forcible rape, and armed criminal action and sentenced to death on the first-degree murder charge. Defendant's subsequent motion for post-conviction relief was overruled. The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the motion court did not (1) err in overruling Defendant's motion to disqualify the trial judge, who sentenced Defendant to death, from presiding over Defendant's post-conviction relief proceeding, as Defendant failed to establish disqualifying bias or prejudice on the part of the judge; (2) clearly err in denying Defendant's eight claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (3) err in denying an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's claim that Missouri's death penalty was unconstitutional. View "McLaughlin v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the amendments to the state earnings tax statutes, Mo. Rev. Stat. 92.105 through 92.125, raising several arguments. The trial court dismissed Appellants' second amended petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the amendments did not violate Mo. Const. art. III, 51, as the initiative was not used for a de facto appropriation of money to pay the election costs to continue the earnings tax; (2) the requirement to hold recurring elections without providing state funds did not constitute an unfunded mandate in violation of the Hancock Amendment; and (3) Appellants did not state a claim for violation of an amendment to the city charter of Kansas City because the initiative process did not amend Kansas City's charter, and therefore, the constitutional requirements of Mo. Const. art. VI, 20 regarding amendments to a city's charter were not applicable. View "Dujakovich v. Carnahan" on Justia Law

This was the fifth action to come before the Supreme Court involving murders committed in 1996 by Carman Deck. Deck filed this Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15 post-conviction proceeding, asserting (1) his counsel at the penalty phase of his capital murder trial was ineffective for failing to call certain witnesses and for other alleged deficient performance, and (2) the motion court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Rule 29.15 relief and the denial of Deck's request for a new trial, holding (1) the motion court did not clearly err in finding that counsel was not ineffective; and (2) Deck was not entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's alleged destruction of juror questionnaires. View "Deck v. State" on Justia Law

Jamilah Nasheed appealed from the trial court's judgment in favor of Robin Wright-Jones on Wright-Jones' petition challenging the qualifications of Nasheed to run for election in the Democratic Party primary for state senator for the 5th district. The trial court found the residency requirement of the Missouri Constitution was ambiguous and Nasheed did not satisfy that requirement to run in the 5th district. An exception in Mo. Const. art. III, 6 provides that if the repportionment of the districts is less than one year before the general election, candidates may reside in any district from which a portion was incorporated into the new district where the candidate seeks office, even if the candidate does not reside in that incorporated portion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Nasheed was eligible to run in the 5th district because the exception did not require Nasheed to live within the boundaries of the reapportioned senate district she sought to represent. View "Wright-Jones v. Nasheed " on Justia Law

Rochelle Gray appealed from the judgment of the trial court in favor of Sylvester Taylor on Gray's petition challenging the qualifications of Taylor to run for election in the Democratic Party primary for state representative in the 75th district. The trial court held that although Taylor did not reside within the boundaries of the new district, the Missouri Constitution required only that he have resided for one year in the county or any of the district from which the new district was created through reapportionment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in the context of reapportionment within one year of a general election, the Constitution requires that a candidate satisfies the one-year residency requirement by residing in the county or any district from which a portion was incorporated in the new district where the candidate seeks office, even if the candidate does not reside in that portion. View "Gray v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Elton Norfolk was found guilty of one count of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon and one count of possession of marijuana. Norfolk appealed, arguing that the circuit court clearly erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence and his objections to the admission of evidence seized because the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and check for a weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that Forfolk's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, the evidence seized was properly admitted, and there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "State v. Norfolk" on Justia Law

Zane Valentine pleaded guilty to one count of child molestation in the first degree and three counts of statutory sodomy in the second degree. The plea agreement provided that Valentine would be placed in the Sex Offender Assessment Unit (SOAU), and the circuit court stated it would retain jurisdiction over Valentine for 120 days while he was assessed. The circuit court then sentenced Valentine. The SOAU later recommended the circuit court grant Valentine probation. More than 120 days after Valentine was sentenced the circuit court entered an order denying Valentine's release on probation. On reconsideration, the circuit court found that Valentine had not completed a "program" as defined in Mo. Rev. Stat. 559.115, and therefore, the court had authority to deny Valentine probation after the statutory time limits set forth in the statue had passed. The Supreme Court granted Valentine a writ of mandamus and ordered the circuit court to release Valentine on probation, holding (1) the SOAU is a 120-day program under section 559.115; and (2) therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Valentine's release on probation when the order was entered beyond the statutory time limits set forth in section 559.115. View "State ex rel. Valentine v. Circuit Court (Orr) " on Justia Law

Respondent Danny Vaughn was charged with one count of burglary and one count of harassment. Both charges contained harassment elements. Upon a motion by Respondent, the motion court dismissed both counts, concluding that Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.090.1(5) and 565.090.1(6) were vague and overbroad. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) section 565.090.1(5) criminalizes communication protected by the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally overbroad; but (2) as construed, section 565.090.1(6) is not overly broad, provides a reasonable notice of the conduct it prohibits, and provides a sufficiently concrete standard so as to mitigate the potential for arbitrary enforcement. View "State v. Vaughn" on Justia Law