Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements he made and physical evidence and admitting them at trial; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or make inconsistent rulings in the admissibility of evidence at the suppression hearing; (3) the evidence amply supported a first-degree murder conviction; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant’s objections and admitting during trial several pieces of evidence and several crime scene and autopsy photographs; (5) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments; and (6) Defendant’s death sentence was proportional to the crime. View "State v. Collings" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a claim against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), alleging that Wells Fargo engaged in bad faith negotiations of a loan modification and wrongfully foreclosed on a deed of trust. The trial court entered judgment for Wells Fargo, concluding that because Wells Fargo’s actions were not taken before or at time of the extension of credit in the original loan, and because Wells Fargo was not a party to the transaction when Appellant first obtained the loan, Wells Fargo’s actions were not “in connection with” the sale of the original loan. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) to the extent Appellant’s allegations related to the wrongful foreclosure, summary judgment was not appropriate pursuant to Conway v. CitiMortgage, Inc., also decided today; and (2) because Wells Fargo was not enforcing the terms of the original loan when it negotiated the loan modification, its actions were not “in connection with” the sale of the original loan and thus did not violate the MMPA. Remanded. View "Watson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

In this family dispute over the inheritance of money and property, the trial court dismissed all of Plaintiff Arthur Fry’s claims and some of the claims of Plaintiffs Mary Ellison, Susan Sleeper, and David Fry. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Mary, David and Susan on three of their claims that J.D. Fry committed frauds and other wrongs that resulted in J.D.’s pecuniary gain. J.D. Fry died after suit was filed but before trial, and the trial court substituted J.D.’s wife, Linda Fry, in her capacity as trustee of J.D.’s trust. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment on the jury verdicts for Mary, Susan and David, holding that Susan and David’s claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations and that Mary’s claims were barred because the trial court erred in substituting Linda upon J.D.’s death. The Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ other claims. View "Ellison v. Fry" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to two felony counts of first-degree statutory sodomy. Appellant subsequently filed a Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court appointed post-conviction counsel to represent Appellant in the proceeding. Appointed counsel then filed a motion requesting that the appointment of counsel be rescinded on the basis that Appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion was untimely. Without holding an independent inquiry, the motion court rescinded its previous order appointing counsel and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the motion was not timely filed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings, claiming that he was abandoned by his appointed counsel when his counsel failed to investigate the timeliness of his post-conviction motion before filing the motion to rescind appointment of counsel. The motion court overruled Appellant’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the motion court clearly erred in dismissing Appellant’s motion because the record raised the presumption that Appellant was abandoned by his post-conviction counsel. View "Vogl v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of child molestation and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, setting forth ten allegations of error. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that his trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the molestation verdict directors, as Appellant’s claims of error were either waived or without merit. View "Mallow v. State" on Justia Law

Homeowners filed a claim against Fannie Mae and CitiMortgage (collectively, Defendants) under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), alleging wrongful foreclosure of a deed of trust. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the alleged wrongful foreclosure of the deed of trust was not “in connection with” the mortgage loan. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the MMPA did not apply because Defendants were not parties to the original loan transaction and that the MMPA does not apply to post-sale activities that are unrelated to claims or representations made before or at the time of the transaction. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Homeowners sufficiently pleaded that Defendants’ alleged wrongful foreclosure of the deed of trust was “in connection with” the loan so as to state a claim under the MMPA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the sale of a loan lasts as long as the agreed upon services are being performed, Homeowners’ allegations of fraud and deception must have occurred “in connection with” the “sale” of their loan. Remanded. View "Conway v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

When Respondent was promoted from her position was an hourly employee to a salaried managerial position at one of Appellants’ long-term care facilities, the parties signed an employment agreement and arbitration agreement. Appellants later terminated Respondent from her position. Respondent filed a class action lawsuit against Appellants seeking compensation for allegedly unpaid overtime hours. Appellants filed a motion to compel arbitration, but the circuit court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Respondent’s continued at-will employment and Appellants’ promise to resolve claims through arbitration did not provide valid consideration to support the arbitration agreement. View "Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant was paid by a staffing company to clean rooms at a hotel. Appellant later filed a class action suit against the staffing company and Respondents, the owner and manager of the hotel, alleging that Respondents and the staffing company were his employers and that Respondents failed to comply with the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL). The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Respondents were Appellant’s employer, and even if Respondents were Appellant’s employer, they could not be held responsible for the alleged wage deficiency because it was caused by the staffing company’s unforeseeable, illegal wage deductions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that if Respondents were Appellant’s employer for purposes of MMWL, the staffing company’s illegal wage deductions did not absolve Respondents from their independent statutory duty as Appellant’s employer to pay him a minimum wage. Remanded. View "Tolentino v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc." on Justia Law

The widow of a man killed in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist (UM) sued her and her husband’s automobile liability insurance carrier seeking UM coverage for her husband’s wrongful death. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, ruling that the insurer’s liability was limited to an “owned-vehicle” partial exclusion in the couple’s policies that limited coverage when the insured was injured while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured but not covered by the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, because the partial exclusion was clear and unambiguous, the trial court did not err in finding that the partial exclusion limited the insurer’s liability in this case. View "Floyd-Tunnell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. On appeal, Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because the victim’s testimony was contradictory and lacked corroboration. Appellant’s argument was based on the “corroboration rule” and the “destructive contradictions” doctrine. The Supreme Court abolished the corroboration rule and the destructive contradictions doctrine because both require appellate courts to engage in credibility determinations that are properly left to judges and juries sitting as triers of fact. The Court then affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Appellant committed statutory sodomy. View "State v. Porter" on Justia Law