Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree domestic assault and witness tampering. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive sentences of five years imprisonment for second-degree assault and two years for witness tampering. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the trial court erred by refusing to submit Defendant’s proffered jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of domestic assault in the third degree; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining Defendant’s charges and overruling his motion for severance, as it is unlikely that joining the assault and witness tampering charges would confuse the jury or invite the jury to convict Defendant based on irrelevant evidence. Remanded. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a medical negligence lawsuit alleging that Appellants negligently failed to timely drain Respondent’s prostate abscess, causing the abscess to rupture. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in Respondent’s favor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants did not preserve for review their argument that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain videotaped deposition testimony; (2) the trial court did not err in failing to find that the verdict was excessive due to jury passion and prejudice or because it exceeded fair and reasonable compensation for Respondent’s injuries; and (3) the Court will not address Appellants’ constitutional challenge to Mo. Rev. Stat. 538.300, which prohibits defendants in medical negligence cases from seeking remittitur, because the statutory prohibition in section 538.300 was not implicated in this case. View "Stewart v. Partamian" on Justia Law

Employee filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits arising out of a work-related pulmonary condition. Employer and Employee entered into a settlement that expressly left “future related pulmonary med[ical] care open.” An administrative law judge approved the settlement. The dispute in this case centered on Employer’s refusal to pay for certain inhaler medicines prescribed to Employee. Employee filed a request for a hearing before the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to determine whether Employer was required to pay for the inhalers. The Commission concluded that it retained jurisdiction to determine Employer’s liability for Employee’s future medical care and ordered the parties to present their evidence in a hearing before the Division of Workers’ Compensation. Thereafter, Employer filed a petition for a writ of prohibition and, alternatively, mandamus, asserting that the parties’ settlement divested the Commission of jurisdiction over the issue of Employer’s liability for Employee’s future medical care. The Supreme Court quashed the preliminary writ, holding that the Commission was not divested of jurisdiction to determine the extent of a claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to a settlement that expressly leaves the issue of future medical care “open” and indeterminate. View "State ex rel. ISP Minerals, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n" on Justia Law

In 1993, Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree sex abuse, which required him to register as a sex offender. In 2012, Respondent filed a petition to be removed from Missouri’s sex offender registry and to be relieved from his obligation to register as a sex offender. The circuit court granted Respondent the relief he requested. The Missouri Attorney General subsequently filed a motion to intervene as a matter of right on behalf of itself, the State, and the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP), seeking to set aside the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in overruling the Attorney General’s motion to intervene because (1) the Attorney General had the unconditional statutory right to intervene in Respondent’s action; and (2) the MSHP had an absolute right to intervene. Remanded. View "Dunivan v. State" on Justia Law

Larry Welch pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and two counts of second-degree assault. Defendant was driving while intoxicated at the time of the offenses. Welch was sentenced to two concurrent fifteen-year terms of imprisonment on the involuntary manslaughter counts and two concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment on the assault counts, to be served consecutively to the involuntary manslaughter sentences. Welch later moved for a reduction of his sentences under Mo. Rev. Stat. 558.046, which permits a reduction of sentence only when the inmate has been convicted of an alcohol-related crime that does not involve violence or the threat of violence. The circuit court granted the motion and ordered Welch’s involuntary manslaughter sentences to be reduced to two concurrent seven-year sentences. The prosecutor filed a petition for writ of prohibition, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to reduce Welch’s involuntary manslaughter sentences. The Supreme Court granted a preliminary writ of prohibition, which it made permanent, holding that the trial court had no authority to reduce Welch’s involuntary manslaughter sentences pursuant to section 558.046 because violent conduct was a necessary component of Welch’s crime. View "State ex rel. Richardson v. Hon. Daniel R. Green" on Justia Law

Mother was charged with felony child abuse after an investigation by Detective. Mother was ultimately acquitted. Mother subsequently brought this action against Detective for malicious prosecution and for violating 42 U.S.C. 1983. Detective moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The trial court sustained the motion. Mother appealed, arguing that Detective was not entitled to summary judgment because the statements he made in his probable cause affidavit were intentionally false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Detective was entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim, where there was no evidence that he acted with malice, and on the section 1983 claim, where there was probable cause to believe that Mother had committed a criminal offense. View "Copeland v. Wicks" on Justia Law

VisionStream, Inc., a Missouri corporation that designed and constructed trade show exhibits and displays, filed for a refund of Missouri sales taxes it remitted for its sale of trade show displays that it produced and shipped in Missouri for customer use outside of Missouri. The Director of Revenue denied the refund request. On appeal, the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) affirmed, determining that VisionStream was not entitled to a sales tax refund on purchases shipped out of state. In so doing, the AHC rejected VisionStream’s argument that title of the displays did not transfer to customers until delivery outside the state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the AHC’s finding that title transferred in Missouri. Therefore, the transactions were subject to Missouri sales tax. View "VisionStream, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

In this original proceeding, Plaintiff challenged the sufficiency and fairness of the ballot title for a proposal modifying the right to bear arms in the state constitution. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a post-election challenge to ballot titles can be brought under Mo. Rev. Stat. chapter 115. The Supreme Court held (1) a challenge to a ballot title may be brought either before an election under Mo. Rev. Stat. chapter 116 or after an election under chapter 115 if the issue has not been previously litigated and determined; and (2) because the ballot title’s description of the declarations added was sufficient and fair, Plaintiffs did not show an election irregularity under chapter 115. View "Dotson v. Kander" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed an election contest challenging the summary statement in the ballot title of a proposed constitutional amendment, arguing that the ballot title was insufficient and unfair. At issue in this case, like Dotson v. Kander, was whether a challenge to a ballot title may be brought after voters have adopted the measure. The Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiffs were entitled to bring a post-election challenge to the ballot title because Dotson held that Mo. Rev. Stat. chapters 115 and 116 allow for such challenges; and (2) the ballot title was sufficient and fair, and therefore, the results of the election adopting the amendment were valid. View "Shoemyer v. Kander" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony criminal nonsupport. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt of criminal nonsupport. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented evidence as to what would constitute “adequate support”; (2) contrary to Defendant’s argument, the State must not present evidence of a lack of in-kind support - such as food, clothing, medicine, or lodging - in order to make a prima facie case of lack of support under Mo. Rev. Stat. 468.040; and (3) there was adequate evidence to make a prima facie case that Defendant failed to provide adequate support for his child. View "State v. Claycomb" on Justia Law