Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A few weeks before his thirty-first birthday, John Doe filed suit against the Heart of America Council of the Boy Scouts of America and the national Boy Scouts of America organization (collectively, “the Boy Scouts”), alleging that the Boy Scouts were vicariously and directly liable for childhood sexual abuse allegedly committed by Doe’s former scoutmaster against Doe. The Boy Scouts moved for summary judgment, arguing that the childhood sexual abuse statute does not provide a basis for liability for anyone other than the actual perpetrator of the abuse, that they were not directly or vicariously liable for the scoutmaster’s acts, and that Doe’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court denied the Boy Scouts’ motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the Boy Scouts filed a petition for writ of prohibition asking the Supreme Court to enjoin the trial court to sustain the Boy Scouts’ motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary writ and here made that writ permanent, holding that the statutes of limitations for Doe’s claims against the Boy Scouts have expired, and, by its terms, Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.046 does not provide a cause of action for childhood sexual abuse against non-perpetrators such as the Boy Scouts organization. View "State ex rel. Heart of Am. Council v. Hon. Charles H. McKenzie" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the Director of Revenue’s final determination regarding Harry Fischer’s 2007 income tax liability. Fischer appealed the Director’s decision to the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC), arguing that the Director erred in assessing additions and interest under Mo. Rev. Stat. 143.741.1 and 143.731.7 in calculating his tax liability for 2005, 2006, and 2007. The AHC affirmed the Director’s final determination. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the AHC, holding (1) the addition to Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed; and (2) interest on Fischer’s 2007 tax liability was properly assessed. View "Fischer v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder, armed criminal action, and first-degree burglary. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the second-degree murder and armed criminal action convictions. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other claims, that the trial court violated his due process rights during the penalty phase by excluding reliable witness testimony, which could have provided a basis for a jury to exonerate him of first-degree murder. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s judgment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the proposed testimony, as it met the indicia of reliability and could exonerate Defendant. Remanded. View "State v. Hartman" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of second-degree drug trafficking. Appellant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and alleging trial error. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case due to the State’s discovery violations and the circuit court’s error in refusing to grant Appellant a continuance. After a second trial, Appellant was again convicted of second-degree trafficking. On appeal, Appellant alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that that circuit court erred in instructing the jury. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; and (2) the circuit court did not plainly err in instructing the jury. View "State v. Zetina-Torres" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.070.1, which prohibits nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. Defendants had been convicted previously of nonviolent felonies. While the charges against Defendants were pending, voters approved Amendment 5 to Mo. Const. art. I, 23. Defendant moved to dismiss the unlawful possession charge, alleging that amended article I, section 23 does not permit the State to criminalize a nonviolent felon’s possession of a firearm. The trial courts in both cases applied the amended version of article I, section 23, concluding that section 571.070.1 was unconstitutional as applied to Defendants, and dismissed the charges. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments in both cases, holding that article I, section 23, as in effect at the time of Defendant’s alleged crimes, did not prohibit the State from regulating the right of nonviolent felons to bear arms. View "State v. Lomax" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.070.1(1), which prohibits nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. Defendant had been convicted previously of the nonviolent felony of unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant moved to dismiss the unlawful possession charge, arguing that section 571.070.1 violates the right to bear arms set forth in Mo. Const. art. I, 23. The trial court agreed with Defendant and dismissed the firearms possession count. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Missouri Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from restricting nonviolent felons’ right to possess firearms and that the statutory bar is valid. Remanded. View "State v. Clay" on Justia Law

Defendant purchased two assault rifles and engaged in target practice while planning to commit a mass shooting. Defendant’s mother alerted the police. During an interview at the police station, Defendant admitted that his plan was to go to the local Walmart and start shooting at random. Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree assault and armed criminal action. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that there was insufficient evidence that he had the purpose to commit first-degree assault and that he took a substantial step toward commission of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a reasonable fact-finder could have found that Defendant had the intent to commit first-degree assault and that Defendant’s conduct constituted substantial steps; and (2) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of his police interview. View "State v. Lammers" on Justia Law

In 1973, Appellant pleaded guilty to felony forgery. In 1975, Appellant was discharged from probation pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 549.111.2, which provided that individuals discharged from probation were “restored all the rights and privileges of citizenship.” In 1977, the statute was repealed. In 2013, Appellant applied for a concealed carry permit. The county sheriff denied the application due to Appellant’s 1973 felony forgery conviction. The circuit court affirmed, concluding that Appellant’s prior guilty plea rendered him ineligible for a concealed carry permit pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.101, which expressly limits the availability of a concealed carry permit to individuals who have “not pled guilty to…a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 571.101 is not unconstitutionally retrospective and that Appellant had no vested right to a concealed weapon permit. View "Hill v. Boyer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by failing to sustain his application for a change of venue under Mo. R. Crim. P. 32.03. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his right to a change of venue by allowing his application to languish in the case until the day before trial while affirmatively representing to the trial court that he had no pending motions in the case; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant’s motion for a continuance. View "State v. Chambers" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with attempted manufacture of a controlled substance of maintaining a public nuisance. During closing arguments, the State presented to the jury a slideshow that included an enlarged color photograph of Defendant in which Defendant was wearing an orange prison jumpsuit with the words “GUILTY” superimposed in large letters running diagonally across his face. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on the State’s use of the altered evidence in the slideshow during closing argument. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the State’s use of the altered photograph of Defendant impinged upon the presumption of innocence and the fairness of the fact-finding process, and therefore, the trial court erred in failing to grant Defendant a new trial. View "State v. Walter" on Justia Law