Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of attempted use of a child in a sexual performance in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 568.080. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that his constitutional right to protected speech was violated because his e-mail exchange with an officer posing as the sixteen-year-old victim did not contemplate or solicit a criminal act. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding (1) because Defendant attempted to induce the victim to engage in a sexual performance, Defendant was not punished for fantasy speech, and thus, section 568.080 was not unconstitutional as applied to Defendant; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. View " State v. Blankenship" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy. Appellant's conviction was confirmed on appeal. Appellant filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. The motion court overruled Appellant's post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's motion for post-conviction relief failed to allege facts not refuted conclusively by the record to support his claims for ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) the motion court did not clearly err in finding that the prosecutor's conduct was appropriate. View "McIntosh v. State" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.070.1(1). Under a 2008 amendment to the statute, a defendant commits unlawful possession of a firearm if he has been convicted of any other felony. The third count of the indictment alleged that Defendant had been convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance in September 2002. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the third count of the indictment, asserting (1) when he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, that conviction did not prohibit him from owning a firearm under the version of section 571.070 in effect at that time; and (2) the 2008 amendment of the statute, as applied to him and his 2002 conviction, violated the Missouri Constitution's ban on retrospective laws by imposing a "new duty or obligation" on him. The circuit court sustained Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Constitution's ban on the passage of any law retrospective in its operation does not apply to criminal laws; and (2) because section 571.070.1(1) is a criminal law, the circuit court erred in dismissing the charge against Defendant on the ground that the statute was unconstitutionally retrospective as applied to him. View "State v. Honeycutt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of burglary in the second degree and stealing. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a trespassing instruction as a lesser-included offense of burglary. The motion court overruled Appellant's claim without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the motion court erred in failing to holding evidentiary hearing on Appellant's claims, as Appellant alleged facts, not clearly refuted by the record, showing he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to submit a lesser-included offense instruction. Remanded. View "McNeal v. State" on Justia Law

In 2001, Respondent pleaded guilty to the class B felony of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. In 2011, Respondent was indicted for knowingly and unlawfully possessing a .38 caliber revolver in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.070, which provides that a person commits unlawful possession of a firearm if he knowingly has a firearm in his possession and has been convicted of a felony. Respondent moved to quash or dismiss the indictment, arguing that section 571.070 violated the Missouri Constitution as applied to him because it was an ex post facto law. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Respondent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 471.070 was not an ex post facto law because it did not apply to conduct completed before its enactment. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

In 1994, Appellant pleaded guilty to sodomy. Congress subsequently passed the federal sex offender registration act (SORNA), which required individuals such as Appellant to register as sex offenders. Before SORNA was enacted, Appellant completed his involvement in the criminal justice system. Appellant filed a petition challenging SORNA's constitutional validity as applied to him. The circuit court entered summary judgment against Appellant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) SORNA does not violate the nondelegation doctrine; (2) the registration requirement does not violate Appellant's right to substantive due process nor the prohibition in the U.S. Constitution against ex post facto criminal laws; and (3) SORNA complies with principles of federalism. View "Roe v. Replogle" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor criminal nonsupport. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal claiming Mo. Rev. Stat. 568.040 violated his due process rights because it forced him to disprove an element of the offense. Specifically, Defendant asserted that section 568.040 was unconstitutional because it makes lack of good cause an element of the crime of criminal support but then shifts the burden of proving good cause to the defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the statute makes lack of good cause an element of the offense that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that Defendant's failure to pay the ordered child support was without good cause. View "State v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first degree assault and armed criminal action (ACA). Defendant subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court dismissed the motion as untimely filed because Defendant filed it within 180 days of his delivery to the department of corrections for his first degree assault sentence, which triggered the period in which he could file a post-conviction relief motion challenging that conviction and sentence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the triggering event was Defendant's previous delivery to the department of corrections to serve his ACA sentence imposed in the same judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in dismissing Defendant's motion as to his claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel because the claim was not timely filed; and (2) Defendant's claim that his counsel at his probation revocation hearing on his assault conviction was ineffective was not cognizable in a Rule 24.035 proceeding. View "Swallow v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, and forcible sodomy. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his incriminating statements to police because the statements were made involuntarily in reliance on an agreement the state failed to honor, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of two separate counts of first-degree robbery. The Supreme Court (1) vacated Defendant's for first-degree robbery as charged in the second count based on the state's concession Defendant was wrongfully subjected to multiple convictions for taking multiple items of property from the victim in the course of a single incident; and (2) affirmed the judgment in all other respects, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant's pretrial statements, as the facts clearly supported the trial court's finding that Defendant's statements were voluntary. View "State v. Hicks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Plaintiff was found guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the trial court did not plainly err in its rulings regarding the jury and jury instructions; (2) the prosecutor did not engage in improper arguments or make improper comments; (3) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (4) the trial court did not err in its rulings during the penalty phase; and (5) in this case, the death penalty complied with all statutorily proportionality requirements. View "State v. McFadden" on Justia Law