Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with violating the City of Moline Acres Ordinance 395.010. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the Ordinance and the City’s Notice of Violation contradicted state law and/or violated due process. The circuit court sustained Defendant’s motion and dismissed the charge with prejudice on the ground that the Ordinance and Notice contradicted state speeding statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that both the Ordinance and Notice are invalid because (1) the Ordinance’s rebuttable presumption that anyone driving an owner’s vehicle does so with the owner’s permission is not constitutionally permissible; and (2) the information charging Defendant is invalid because it is not supported by a notice that conforms to the requirements of Rule 37.33. View "City of Moline Acres v. Brennan" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the unlawful possession charges, claiming that the felon-in-possession law violates the Missouri Constitution’s protection of his right to bear arms. The circuit court sustained the motion. The State appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Missouri Constitution’s right to bear arms provision - article I, section 23 - was amended to state that courts must apply strict scrutiny to laws restricting the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prior version of article I, section 23 applies in this case; (2) as this Court held in Doston v. Kander, strict scrutiny applies under the prior version of article I, section 23; and (3) the felon-in-possession law survives strict scrutiny and does not violate article I, section 23’s protection of Defendant’s right to bear arms. Remanded. View "State v. Merritt" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs each received notices that they had violated ordinance 66868, the City of St. Louis’s red light camera ordinance. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the validity of the ordinance and seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is invalid and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. The City subsequently dismissed the pending prosecutions against Plaintiffs. After a bench trial, the court enjoined the City from enforcing ordinance 66868, concluding that the ordinance was invalid, but denied Plaintiffs’ petition as to the rest of the defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs could maintain their action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief because, after the City dismissed the prosecutions for the ordinance violations, Plaintiffs no longer had an adequate legal remedy; (2) ordinance 66868 is constitutionally invalid because it creates a rebuttable presumption that improperly shifts the burden of persuasion onto the defendant to prove that the defendant was not operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation; and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding attorney’s fees. View "Tupper v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

The City of St. Peters enacted ordinance 4536 to authorize the use of an automated red light enforcement system. The ordinance creates an offense when a person fails to comply with the City Traffic Code and the violation is detected throughout the automated enforcement system. After a jury trial, Bonnie Roeder was found guilty of violating ordinance 4536. The trial court subsequently dismissed the charge against Roeder, concluding that the ordinance conflicted with state law by not assessing points against a violator’s driving record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that ordinance 4536 conflicts with Mo. Rev. Stat. 302.302.1, which requires the assessment of two points for a moving violation, because ordinance 4536 creates a moving violation and states that no points will be assessed. View "City of St. Peters v. Roeder" on Justia Law

Mother and Father dissolved their marriage pursuant to a judgment of dissolution that granted Mother and Father joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children. Mother later announced her intent to relocate the children and moved to modify the dissolution judgment requesting that she be given sole legal and physical custody. The trial court approved Mother’s proposed relocation, modified legal custody of the children to sole legal custody in favor of Mother, and concluded that Mother and Father should continue to share joint physical custody of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s approval of Mother’s relocation was supported by substantial evidence, and the record also contained substantial evidence supporting a change from joint to sole legal custody in Mother. View "Pasternak v. Pasternak" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from five separate but essentially identical wrongful death claims brought by Plaintiffs against Hospital. The petitions alleged that a former employee of the hospital intentionally administered a lethal dose of medication that resulted in the decedents’ deaths and that the Hospital acted affirmatively to conceal the suspicious nature of the deaths. The trial courts entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of Hospital, concluding that Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred by the three-year limitation in Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.100. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that their claims were not barred by the statute of limitation because Hospital intentionally and fraudulently concealed the tortious nature of the decedents’ deaths. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, despite the harsh result, Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because the three-year statute of limitation had passed when the lawsuits were filed and because section 537.100 does not provide an exception for fraudulent concealment. View "Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing that the felon-in-possession law violates the Missouri Constitution’s protection of his right to bear arms. While Defendant’s appeal was pending, the Missouri Constitution’s right to bear arms provision - article I, section 23 - was amended to state that courts must apply strict scrutiny to laws restricting the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) the prior version of article I, section 23 applies in this case; (2) as this Court necessarily held in Doston v. Kander, strict scrutiny applies under the prior version of article I, section 23; and (3) the felon-in-possession law survives strict scrutiny and does not violate article I, section 23’s protection of Defendant’s right to bear arms. View "State v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Missouri Municipal League (MML) filed this lawsuit challenging the validity of Mo. Rev. Stat. 302.341.2, as enacted in House Bill 103 (HB103), claiming that HB103 violated the bill-passage requirements in article III, sections 21 and 23 of the Missouri Constitution and that HB103 violated various substantive provisions of the constitution. The circuit court granted the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment for the State. MML appealed. After this case was briefed, argued, and submitted, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 5 (SB5), which repealed the language in section 302.341.2 that formed the basis for MML’s claims. The Supreme Court dismissed MML’s appeal, as all of MML’s procedural and substantive claims had become moot. View "Miss. Municipal League v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to sixteen years in prison as a prior and persistent drug offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony from a witness to Defendant’s arrest, as the witness’s testimony was not relevant as a direct observation of the crime or surrounding circumstances, was not proper evidence to impeach the arresting officers’ credibility, and did not contradict the officers’ testimony; and (2) did not violate Defendant’s due process right to allocution during his sentencing hearing, as Defendant failed to show that the court did not consider mitigating evidence in determining his sentence, and the court received mitigating evidence when Defendant was heard on his motion for a new trial. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree trespass, second-degree assault, and armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced Defendant to six months in jail for trespass and seven years each in prison for the assault and armed criminal action convictions. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to submit to the jury Defendant’s proffered jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of third-degree assault, as the offense of third-degree assault is a “nested” lesser-included offense within the offense of second-degree assault. Remanded. View "State v. Randle" on Justia Law