{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff","displayName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-","totalCases":100},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38528:2025-09-23","opinionId":"c880658e-6b7a-5387-835e-8fcf27a31e32","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deborah-k-lundstrom-defendant-ap-d38528","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDEBORAH K. LUNDSTROM, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38528","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deborah K. Lundstrom was convicted of multiple charges, including first-degree endangering the welfare of a child resulting in death and involuntary manslaughter, after a 9-month-old child died from asphyxiation in a car seat while left unsupervised at her unlicensed daycare. On appeal, Lundstrom challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the death-related charges and argued the trial court plainly erred in a jury instruction. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence for both charges and no plain error in the jury instruction, as the terms \"caused\" and \"results in\" were deemed to have no meaningful difference in this context.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deborah-k-lundstrom-defendant-ap-d38528","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38581:2025-09-09","opinionId":"72ae2e90-279e-57a1-8849-265e9b4c1974","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deparis-d-townsend-defendant-app-d38581","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDEPARIS D. TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38581","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deparis Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, resisting arrest, and armed criminal action following a jury trial. On appeal, Townsend challenged the admission of a Facebook video and the trial court's failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial after testimony about his invocation of the right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the handling of the invocation of counsel. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the written judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of a life sentence without parole for the murder conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-deparis-d-townsend-defendant-app-d38581","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38642:2025-09-09","opinionId":"dc3f27e3-2c48-57b8-8c1a-83bb079ca368","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMICHAEL SCOTT MOUNT, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38642","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael Scott Mount was found guilty of multiple charges, including identity theft, after a bench trial. On appeal, Mount challenged his identity theft conviction, arguing insufficient evidence, and sought to exclude evidence as fruit of an unlawful search. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding Mount lacked standing to challenge the hotel room search and that sufficient evidence supported his identity theft conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-scott-mount-defendant-ap-d38642","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38188:2025-08-29","opinionId":"d746e18d-82a5-5cfa-a664-ae559f5ed0fb","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. COOPER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38188","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Cooper appealed his conviction for armed criminal action, arguing that the trial court erred by submitting a jury instruction on armed criminal action with involuntary manslaughter as the underlying felony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Cooper failed to preserve the instructional error for review by not making a specific objection at trial or in his motion for new trial. The court declined to exercise plain error review, and further noted that even if reviewed, the argument would fail on the merits due to controlling Supreme Court of Missouri precedent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38531:2025-07-22","opinionId":"994dc602-d233-556d-980c-6b85cfa7ab6e","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-gregory-leon-crumm-defendant-app-d38531","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nGREGORY LEON CRUMM, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38531","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Gregory Leon Crumm was convicted of first-degree rape by forcible compulsion and first-degree statutory rape, stemming from a single act of sexual intercourse. He appealed, arguing that his convictions for both offenses violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, declining plain-error review and holding that convictions for both forcible rape and statutory rape for a single act do not constitute double jeopardy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-gregory-leon-crumm-defendant-app-d38531","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38252:2025-07-14","opinionId":"6128d365-ec63-571b-8f1f-3c5c98d559a7","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-genaro-foreman-jr-defendan-d38252","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nBOBBY GENARO FOREMAN, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38252","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bobby Genaro Foreman, Jr. appealed his convictions for two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the trial court plainly erred by failing to include cross-references to self-defense and defense-of-others jury instructions in the verdict directors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It concluded that, despite the instructional error, Foreman failed to demonstrate that the omission resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, especially since the jury was generally instructed on the defenses and counsel argued them.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-genaro-foreman-jr-defendan-d38252","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38592:2025-05-30","opinionId":"5406a1b1-203b-530a-8954-6c61745da29c","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alan-keith-gilliam-defendant-app-d38592","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nALAN KEITH GILLIAM, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38592","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-30","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alan-keith-gilliam-defendant-app-d38592","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38552:2025-05-30","opinionId":"2b006fde-64ce-5331-b506-a83691e11445","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-defendant-appe-d38552","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nAMANDA JOY ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38552","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Amanda Joy Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon after a jury found her guilty. The trial court's judgment was reversed because the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court held that in cases of joint control of a vehicle, mere presence, proximity to a concealed firearm, nervousness, or driving the vehicle are not enough to establish conscious and intentional possession without additional incriminating circumstances, which were absent here.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-defendant-appe-d38552","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38351:2025-05-23","opinionId":"8dbf64a5-9ab7-5e83-a277-0ec2661b986b","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-lewis-brown-jr-defendant-d38351","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nSTEVEN LEWIS BROWN, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38351","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-23","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220893","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-lewis-brown-jr-defendant-d38351","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38308:2025-04-28","opinionId":"ffd36f9e-16ec-54f1-a158-40a09a72ed4d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jordan-niccole-williams-defendan-d38308","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJORDAN NICCOLE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38308","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jordan Niccole Williams appealed her conviction for abuse or neglect of a child resulting in serious physical injury. She argued that the Amended Information was insufficient and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the Information adequately charged the offense and that there was sufficient evidence to prove Williams knowingly caused the victim's injuries by failing to protect him from serious physical abuse.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jordan-niccole-williams-defendan-d38308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38559:2025-02-25","opinionId":"c03545ef-befd-51be-bcb3-094cc60231ad","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-patrick-yount-defendant-ap-d38559","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nDAVID PATRICK YOUNT, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38559","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-patrick-yount-defendant-ap-d38559","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38378:2025-02-25","opinionId":"0fe05b1f-6bda-5162-845f-550d907c47ac","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kyle-a-byington-defendant-appell-d38378","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKYLE A. BYINGTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38378","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kyle Byington was convicted of first-degree murder and abandonment of a corpse following a jury trial. On appeal, Byington argued the trial court erred by denying his request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, declining plain error review. It held that voluntary manslaughter is not a nested lesser included offense of first- or second-degree murder, and the jury's conviction of the greater offense (first-degree murder) over the lesser (second-degree murder) demonstrated no prejudice from the omitted instruction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217814","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kyle-a-byington-defendant-appell-d38378","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38099:2025-02-24","opinionId":"7fec4c7c-feaa-5127-a730-fab8be5061a4","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lance-lechner-defendant-appellan-d38099","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nLANCE LECHNER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38099","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lance Lechner appealed his conviction for first-degree child molestation, raising seven points of error. He challenged the trial court's decision to allow the State to amend the felony information on the day of trial and to deny his motion for continuance. Lechner also argued the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial or striking certain venirepersons due to potential bias from his prior convictions. Additionally, he claimed instructional error regarding the aggravated sexual offense element and insufficient evidence for that element. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of Lechner's claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217774","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lance-lechner-defendant-appellan-d38099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38121:2025-01-31","opinionId":"eaed7b72-deab-5603-84f0-d5eae7cc03df","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-isariah-m-roberts-defendant-appe-d38121","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nISARIAH M. ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38121","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-31","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-isariah-m-roberts-defendant-appe-d38121","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38445:2025-01-13","opinionId":"e3f115e8-e5d1-5a49-b115-78fcc6c506df","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-defendant-responden-d38445","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nAMANDA M. MIRE, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38445","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"Amanda M. Mire was charged with driving while intoxicated, and the trial court granted her motions to suppress statements and physical evidence, specifically blood draw results. The trial court found that Mire was involuntarily administered Versed, which prevented her from knowingly and voluntarily consenting to a blood draw or waiving her Miranda rights. The State appealed, and the appellate court vacated the trial court's order, holding that the trial court clearly erred by inferring the cognitive effects of Versed without expert testimony. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-defendant-responden-d38445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38339:2025-01-09","opinionId":"4047edd7-eeba-5725-9734-0f86d15cfe81","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-yaggy-defendant-appellant-d38339","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJOHN YAGGY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38339","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"John Yaggy appealed his convictions for resisting arrest and second-degree kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed the convictions. It held that Yaggy waived his first point of error by introducing evidence, and for the second point, it found sufficient evidence to support the mens rea for both the kidnapping and resisting arrest charges.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-yaggy-defendant-appellant-d38339","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38329:2024-12-31","opinionId":"cfcfbb8d-a121-59ba-8127-c3f943bea869","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-damyon-wayne-fisher-defendant-ap-d38329","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDAMYON WAYNE FISHER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38329","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Damyon Wayne Fisher appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, challenging the circuit court's decision to sustain the prosecutor's objection to a question defense counsel asked during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion because the question improperly sought a commitment from prospective jurors regarding a hypothetical situation that strongly mirrored the anticipated facts of the case.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-damyon-wayne-fisher-defendant-ap-d38329","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38085:2024-12-23","opinionId":"1e6ade7e-ad88-5092-b504-11994be34417","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-frank-clifford-parry-iv-defendan-d38085","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nFRANK CLIFFORD PARRY IV, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38085","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Defendant Frank Clifford Parry IV appealed his convictions for multiple felonies, including child molestation and statutory sodomy, and his consecutive life sentences. He argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's allegations of sexual abuse by others and by sentencing him based on a mistaken belief. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidence exclusion and no plain error in the sentencing.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-frank-clifford-parry-iv-defendan-d38085","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37579:2024-12-20","opinionId":"2c479e40-8e3b-5de5-af01-96e0d069be17","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keith-thompson-defendant-appella-d37579","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKEITH THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37579","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Keith Thompson was convicted as a prior and persistent offender of first-degree statutory rape, third-degree child molestation, and sexual misconduct with a child by indecent exposure. On appeal, Thompson challenged the denial of a mistrial, argued double jeopardy for the sexual misconduct conviction, and contended the evidence was insufficient for the sexual misconduct charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of Thompson's points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keith-thompson-defendant-appella-d37579","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38111:2024-12-19","opinionId":"f4ad1863-dbc6-539f-a440-5efa0fba8b24","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keymond-s-brown-defendant-appell-d38111","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nKEYMOND S. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38111","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Keymond S. Brown appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shootout. Brown contended the trial court erred by denying his motion to compel discovery of the victim's juvenile records, which he sought for his self-defense claim, and by admitting evidence of his attempt to fabricate an alibi while in juvenile detention. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the trial court lacked authority to compel the juvenile records and that Brown failed to show their materiality, and that the alibi evidence was properly admitted as consciousness of guilt.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keymond-s-brown-defendant-appell-d38111","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37766:2024-12-18","opinionId":"316fc0c0-aca0-589c-a7cc-ad4f067686f1","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-shane-howard-keathley-defendant-d37766","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nSHANE HOWARD KEATHLEY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37766","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-18","year":2024,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-shane-howard-keathley-defendant-d37766","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38326:2024-12-10","opinionId":"b58c052a-e7a8-5a91-91d4-d3b218c8b2d3","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-martin-eugene-hood-defenda-d38326","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDAVID MARTIN EUGENE HOOD, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38326","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Martin Eugene Hood was convicted of statutory rape, sodomy, and incest. On appeal, he argued the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss, which was made after the prosecutor's opening statement failed to mention the offenses occurred in McDonald County or Missouri. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that Hood broadened his objection on appeal, the trial court properly allowed the State to supplement its opening statement, and Hood failed to show prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-martin-eugene-hood-defenda-d38326","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38126:2024-12-05","opinionId":"d671725b-92e3-53f9-8578-ed80f405d71d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-benjamin-allen-bodine-defendant-d38126","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nBENJAMIN ALLEN BODINE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38126","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Benjamin Allen Bodine appealed his convictions for enticement of a child and first-degree statutory sodomy, arguing the trial court plainly erred by sending a video of a juvenile witness interview to the jury during deliberations. The defendant failed to preserve this claim for appeal, requesting plain error review. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals declined to exercise plain error review, affirming the judgment based on established precedent that such forensic interviews are not testimonial in nature and can be provided to the jury.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-benjamin-allen-bodine-defendant-d38126","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38160:2024-11-12","opinionId":"4ef6e571-1ccc-51c4-bbf9-9c770099019b","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-mark-saleutogi-keleise-defendant-d38160","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMARK SALEUTOGI KELEISE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38160","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mark Saleutogi Keleise appealed his convictions for multiple counts of kidnapping, assault, and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court plainly erred by sending a video of a juvenile witness interview to the jury during deliberation. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the convictions. The court held that Keleise waived plain error review because his defense counsel affirmatively participated in providing the video to the jury and did not object.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-mark-saleutogi-keleise-defendant-d38160","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38315:2024-10-31","opinionId":"61d243f9-fc6d-58d3-a44f-61331a1eaeca","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-matthew-todd-tetmeyer-defendant-d38315","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMATTHEW TODD TETMEYER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38315","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Matthew Todd Tetmeyer appealed his conviction for violating an order of protection against his father, J.T. He argued that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence regarding a separate, expired order of protection obtained by his mother, S.T., against him, which he claimed was relevant to his knowledge of the active order. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence because it was not relevant to the specific order of protection at issue and its probative value was outweighed by its potential to confuse the issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-matthew-todd-tetmeyer-defendant-d38315","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38373:2024-10-29","opinionId":"07bf98aa-9a73-5531-bf5a-ee4e5e70ef66","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-timothy-green-jr-defendant-appel-d38373","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nTIMOTHY GREEN, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38373","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Timothy Green, Jr. was convicted of second-degree assault and armed criminal action after a jury trial. On appeal, Green claimed the circuit court erred in taxing costs against him and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, declined plain error review for the costs issue, finding no manifest injustice. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the victim's testimony provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find Green guilty of the assault.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-timothy-green-jr-defendant-appel-d38373","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38137:2024-10-25","opinionId":"7a6d5eea-a3d6-56a7-a60d-c9299024641a","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ricky-arnold-defendant-appellant-d38137","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nRICKY ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38137","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ricky Arnold appealed his convictions for resisting a lawful stop and second-degree felony murder following a jury trial. Arnold argued the trial court erred by admitting a state trooper's opinion testimony regarding his intent to flee and by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence that he operated a vehicle at a high speed. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the admission of testimony because the objection was not timely or specific, and concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding on the \"high speed\" element of resisting a lawful stop.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ricky-arnold-defendant-appellant-d38137","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38241:2024-10-08","opinionId":"197f7649-428d-5b90-ada4-919b56c5db45","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-david-fleenor-defendant-app-d38241","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJOHN DAVID FLEENOR, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38241","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-08","year":2024,"display_summary":"John David Fleenor was found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon after a bench trial and sentenced to two years in prison. On appeal, Fleenor argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, claiming the State failed to prove he did not act in self-defense. The Southern District affirmed the conviction, holding that Fleenor failed to inject the issue of self-defense into the trial, thus relieving the State of the burden to disprove it.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-david-fleenor-defendant-app-d38241","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38257:2024-10-04","opinionId":"9dfdae86-979a-515b-b7e2-5fc60bbbdbcf","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-ray-durison-defendant-ap-d38257","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nMICHAEL RAY DURISON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38257","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Ray Durison, an inmate, was convicted of first-degree assault against a special victim, armed criminal action, and disarming a correctional officer after a physical altercation with a corrections officer at a hospital. During the struggle, Durison took the officer's Taser and stunned him. On appeal, Durison challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his assault and armed criminal action convictions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Durison's arguments.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-ray-durison-defendant-ap-d38257","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38314:2024-10-03","opinionId":"d854b94e-306a-5257-9d63-a5f1e449eb93","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-gary-lee-farrar-jr-defendant-app-d38314","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nGARY LEE FARRAR, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38314","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Gary Lee Farrar, Jr. appealed his convictions for first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, stealing, and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court erred by not dismissing his case under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law (UMDDL). Farrar contended he substantially complied with the UMDDL's 180-day trial request. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Farrar failed to substantially comply with the UMDDL by not delivering his request to the director of adult institutions and omitting essential information required for the director's certificate.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-gary-lee-farrar-jr-defendant-app-d38314","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37914:2024-09-19","opinionId":"598c14e3-f893-580e-b42c-4074e7eae1b7","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-dustin-curtis-winter-defendant-a-d37914","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nDUSTIN CURTIS WINTER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37914","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dustin Curtis Winter appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping, along with a clerical error in his sentencing judgment. The appellate court affirmed the murder conviction, finding sufficient evidence of Victim's death, Winter's perpetration, and deliberation. However, the court reversed the kidnapping conviction, concluding there was insufficient evidence that the confinement was for a substantial period or more than merely incidental to the murder. The case was remanded to the trial court to correct the written judgment to reflect the orally pronounced life sentence for murder.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211734","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-dustin-curtis-winter-defendant-a-d37914","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38162:2024-09-13","opinionId":"35d7e7bf-9d4b-58cb-b04d-89ef52cf81bc","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-ray-hanks-sr-defendant-ap-d38162","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent, \nv.\nSTEVEN RAY HANKS, SR., Defendant-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SD38162","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Steven Ray Hanks, Sr., a registered sex offender, appealed his conviction for failing to register a change of address. He argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he failed to inform the registrar knowingly and that the trial court plainly erred by not striking testimony about a school zone restriction. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that Hanks failed to register his new address despite being told it was impermissible, and that the trial court did not plainly err because Hanks himself introduced the evidence of the restriction as part of his defense.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211417","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-ray-hanks-sr-defendant-ap-d38162","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38260:2024-09-13","opinionId":"fe98eb7e-2be9-54dd-a9a4-bb7d1a4a4374","slug":"joshua-rainey-defendant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-plaintiff-responden-d38260","caseName":"JOSHUA RAINEY, Defendant-Appellant, \nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD38260","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joshua Rainey pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges and subsequently filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. Rainey claimed counsel failed to adequately inform him of his right to plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGRI), failed to enter an NGRI plea, and failed to inform the court of a psychiatric report supporting an NGRI defense. The motion court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no clear error in the motion court's findings that counsel acted reasonably and Rainey's plea was knowing and voluntary.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-rainey-defendant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-plaintiff-responden-d38260","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38101:2024-09-12","opinionId":"f334c5c2-917d-5f4f-8e86-1bc5517c705e","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-a-benford-defendant-appel-d38101","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nSTEVEN A. BENFORD, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38101","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Steven A. Benford appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, among other charges, from the Circuit Court of Greene County. He argued there was insufficient evidence to prove the weapon found in his possession was a \"firearm\" as defined by statute. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the testimony of experienced police officers identifying the weapon as a 9-millimeter Taurus PT111 handgun, along with its admission as an exhibit, constituted sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-a-benford-defendant-appel-d38101","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38212:2024-09-05","opinionId":"e41f0e56-3cd3-5166-b80a-a638fd6b3250","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-travis-sterling-defendant-appell-d38212","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nTRAVIS STERLING, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38212","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Travis Sterling appealed his conviction for second-degree trafficking of methamphetamine, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony about a field test without demonstrating its reliability. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, declining to consider the argument because Sterling failed to make a foundational objection at trial, thus not preserving the issue for appeal. The court also declined plain error review, finding no facial showing of manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-travis-sterling-defendant-appell-d38212","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37867:2024-08-27","opinionId":"fcd67c34-1a5f-5bb0-ba06-d5c63bb7a5f0","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-brant-m-winkle-defendant-appella-d37867","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nBRANT M. WINKLE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37867","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Brant M. Winkle appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and armed criminal action following a jury trial. The appellate court dismissed two of Winkle's three points on appeal for failing to comply with Rule 84.04(d)'s briefing requirements. However, the court reviewed the third point, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, despite its deficiencies. The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-brant-m-winkle-defendant-appella-d37867","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38300:2024-08-26","opinionId":"4389f990-c536-5f86-bf00-e94137457359","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-james-l-lancaster-defendant-appe-d38300","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJAMES L. LANCASTER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38300","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"James L. Lancaster appealed his conviction for third-degree domestic assault, arguing the trial court erred by admitting only a portion of a home surveillance video, thereby violating the rule of completeness. The video admitted depicted the entire assault, while Lancaster sought to introduce a longer video to impeach the victim's credibility. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the admission of the video. The court held that the rule of completeness did not apply because the additional video was not part of a greater whole related to the charged conduct, and was sought only for impeachment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-james-l-lancaster-defendant-appe-d38300","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37873:2024-08-22","opinionId":"e4da7a27-c243-5fd6-83f5-30df954f73e2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-dereck-whitney-defendant-appella-d37873","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nD'ERECK WHITNEY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37873","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Defendant D'Ereck Whitney appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, assault, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage. He argued the trial court erred by admitting a YouTube video and that there was insufficient evidence for his first-degree assault convictions. The appellate court affirmed the admission of the video, finding the defendant \"opened the door\" to its admission. However, the court reversed several first-degree assault convictions due to insufficient evidence of specific intent, remanding for entry of convictions for the lesser-included offense of fourth-degree assault.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210734","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-dereck-whitney-defendant-appella-d37873","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37757:2024-08-14","opinionId":"46a2b910-20b4-5586-9ff1-1cdc3e27e28a","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-william-shields-defendant-d37757","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nROBERT WILLIAM SHIELDS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37757","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-14","year":2024,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-william-shields-defendant-d37757","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38138:2024-08-13","opinionId":"e247f6be-d6a4-5c3a-9a4b-60c6c335484f","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-b-shultz-defendant-a-d38138","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCHRISTOPHER B. SHULTZ, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38138","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher B. Shultz appealed his convictions for harassment, stalking, and tampering with a victim, arguing insufficient evidence for tampering and requesting plain-error review for jury instruction and preliminary hearing issues. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the judgment. The court found sufficient evidence supported the tampering conviction and declined plain-error review for the remaining points, concluding Shultz failed to demonstrate manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-b-shultz-defendant-a-d38138","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37992:2024-07-30","opinionId":"f8dee369-0642-5f24-8ab4-8643f712824e","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-willis-english-defen-d37992","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nCHRISTOPHER WILLIS ENGLISH, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37992","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher Willis English appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and abandonment of a corpse. He contended the trial court erred by allowing a law enforcement officer to testify as a rebuttal witness and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the rebuttal testimony and concluding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-willis-english-defen-d37992","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38190:2024-07-23","opinionId":"1ba03e74-6454-5b16-a6d5-a4323a92efa4","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alisha-louise-buell-defendant-ap-d38190","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nALISHA LOUISE BUELL, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38190","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Alisha Louise Buell appealed her conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) following a bench trial, arguing insufficient evidence to prove she was intoxicated or impaired by drugs. The State presented evidence of Buell's admissions to recent drug use, her erratic driving behavior, and an officer's observations and opinion of impairment. The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of intoxication.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alisha-louise-buell-defendant-ap-d38190","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37818:2024-07-22","opinionId":"6b50a70d-00e5-58df-81d9-b41705a7471d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kevin-irby-defendant-appellant-d37818","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKEVIN IRBY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37818","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Defendant Kevin Irby appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, arguing the trial court erred by making a handwritten amendment to a jury instruction that may have misdirected the jury. The amendment added the word \"unlawfully\" to Instruction No. 5, an element of the offense. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the amendment was not plain error because the instruction, as amended, contained all necessary elements, and the jury was repeatedly advised on the \"unlawfully\" element by both the court and counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kevin-irby-defendant-appellant-d37818","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37981:2024-07-18","opinionId":"dd9074e1-c877-5ee8-a940-c21602c03a29","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ryan-robert-houston-defendant-ap-d37981","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nRYAN ROBERT HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37981","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ryan Houston appealed his conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim, arguing the State failed to prove he knew the victim was an elderly person. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The court held that the relevant statute, § 565.052.3, does not require proof of a defendant's knowledge of a victim's special status because § 562.021.2 dictates that a culpable mental state is only required for elements explicitly specified in the offense definition.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209854","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ryan-robert-houston-defendant-ap-d37981","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37153:2024-07-16","opinionId":"10afb489-5875-5133-98b5-9c166e9b12e6","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-carl-w-dill-ii-defendant-appella-d37153","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCARL W. DILL, II, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37153","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Carl W. Dill, II appealed his convictions for first-degree trafficking and resisting arrest following a jury trial. He argued the evidence was insufficient to prove his affirmative participation in drug trafficking as an accomplice and that he knew he was being arrested before fleeing. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, re-adopted and re-issued its original opinion. The court affirmed both convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude Dill participated in trafficking and knew or should have known he was being arrested.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-carl-w-dill-ii-defendant-appella-d37153","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37691:2024-07-09","opinionId":"47bd328d-1966-5074-94b4-1e4e66ad6dff","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jeremy-damon-guest-defendant-app-d37691","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nJEREMY DAMON GUEST, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37691","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jeremy Damon Guest appealed his convictions for voluntary manslaughter, armed criminal action, stealing, and unlawful use of a weapon, stemming from a shooting incident at a Pilot Truck Stop where he claimed self-defense. Guest argued the trial court erred by allowing the State to question him about his brother not testifying and by overruling an objection to the State's closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion as the brother was a peculiarly available witness and the closing argument was a permissible response that did not decisively impact the jury's verdict.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jeremy-damon-guest-defendant-app-d37691","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38289:2024-06-24","opinionId":"bc25e86a-3c54-5a05-adeb-fd0034712ba7","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-henry-john-epenesa-defendant-app-d38289","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nHENRY JOHN EPENESA, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38289","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Henry John Epenesa appealed his conviction for assault in the fourth degree following a bench trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove he was not acting in self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that Epenesa failed to meet his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense with substantial evidence, thus the State was not required to disprove it, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-henry-john-epenesa-defendant-app-d38289","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37764:2024-06-20","opinionId":"3d21cb5a-a4da-5ca0-a083-43712d38f82d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-lee-mays-jr-defendant-appe-d37764","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nBOBBY LEE MAYS, [JR.], Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37764","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Bobby Lee Mays, Jr. appealed his convictions for felony possession of a controlled substance, driving with a suspended license, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Mays contended the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance after the State failed to disclose Officer Cliff's body camera video in discovery. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion because the trial court excluded the late-disclosed evidence as Mays requested, and Mays did not formally move for a continuance after reviewing the video.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209095","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-lee-mays-jr-defendant-appe-d37764","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37796:2024-06-07","opinionId":"99ebbbdb-353c-5ecf-be72-51826a2eb670","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-edward-dennis-rodgers-defendant-d37796","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nEDWARD DENNIS RODGERS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37796","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"Edward Dennis Rodgers appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, raising four points of alleged plain error. He claimed the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense or justification by necessity, by excluding an inmate's testimony, and by allowing questioning about his post-arrest silence. The Southern District of Missouri declined to review any of Rodgers's points for plain error, finding he failed to facially establish substantial grounds for believing manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208882","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-edward-dennis-rodgers-defendant-d37796","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38010:2024-06-07","opinionId":"0e0b3e74-7835-5ba6-a0ab-6f91d9c763f4","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-roy-blacksure-defendant-appellan-d38010","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nROY BLACKSURE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38010","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"Roy Blacksure appealed his convictions for multiple felonies, including robbery and armed criminal action, stemming from a home invasion. He argued there was insufficient evidence to prove his identity as one of the perpetrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the victim's identification, corroborated by other witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient for the jury to find Blacksure guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208883","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-roy-blacksure-defendant-appellan-d38010","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38024:2024-06-07","opinionId":"11944b2b-929d-5512-9b98-a363381e98b0","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-debbie-gosvener-defendant-appell-d38024","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs\nDEBBIE GOSVENER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38024","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"Debbie Gosvener appealed her conviction for felony stealing a credit device following a bench trial. She argued there was insufficient evidence to prove she appropriated a debit card from a purse left at a gas station. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage of her actions, a police officer's expert testimony, and her self-incriminating statement, was sufficient for the trial court to infer her guilt.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208881","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-debbie-gosvener-defendant-appell-d38024","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37787:2024-06-07","opinionId":"66f45229-6865-5567-b3d6-62dd115756ad","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-sean-m-wolf-defendant-appellant-d37787","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nSEAN M. WOLF, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37787","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sean M. Wolf appealed his convictions for attempted tampering with a victim and tampering with a witness. He argued the trial court erred by overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove the alleged victim was, in fact, a victim of any crime. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that despite Wolf's multifarious point on appeal, which it reviewed ex gratia, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that the target of the tampering was a victim of a crime.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208884","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-sean-m-wolf-defendant-appellant-d37787","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38053:2024-05-30","opinionId":"4ebe4787-2df8-50e6-8711-7de3d2813818","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-charles-kenneth-mulverhill-defen-d38053","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCHARLES KENNETH MULVERHILL, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38053","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-30","year":2024,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-charles-kenneth-mulverhill-defen-d38053","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37795:2024-05-28","opinionId":"f48ea206-e527-5dcf-a626-d05446ad37b2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-warren-dale-branning-defendant-re-d37795","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nWARREN DALE BRANNING, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37795","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri appealed the circuit court's dismissal of a criminal Information against Warren Dale Branning, which charged him with making a terrorist threat, felony resisting arrest, and first-degree harassment. The circuit court dismissed the charges, finding the alleged conduct was constitutionally protected and the Information failed to charge an offense. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the facts alleged in the Information, even if true, did not constitute a violation of law under the charged statutes, and thus did not reach the constitutional claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-warren-dale-branning-defendant-re-d37795","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37196:2024-05-14","opinionId":"b21c4016-2007-521e-a60e-78cef8487ccc","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-william-henry-iii-defendant-appe-d37196","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nWILLIAM HENRY III, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37196","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"William Henry III appealed his conviction for assault of corrections officers and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court erred by admitting video evidence of a fellow inmate having a seizure and by denying his motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no outcome-determinative prejudice from the video's admission given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also determined that Henry's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated, weighing the Barker factors against him due to his contribution to delays and late assertion of the right.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-william-henry-iii-defendant-appe-d37196","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37732:2024-05-09","opinionId":"6a4b0b7a-7e07-51cb-bda8-688845f3b73d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-c-rost-defendant-appellan-d37732","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nROBERT C. ROST, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37732","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert C. Rost appealed his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, armed criminal action, assault, and tampering. He challenged the denial of a mistrial due to juror misconduct, the refusal to sever the tampering charge, and the sufficiency of evidence for tampering. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on these three points, finding no abuse of discretion or insufficient evidence. However, the court found a clerical error in the written judgment regarding the tampering conviction and remanded the case for a nunc pro tunc correction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-c-rost-defendant-appellan-d37732","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37894:2024-05-07","opinionId":"e34607e6-f363-5130-bf11-861fa560dde9","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-elmer-antonio-nieto-defendant-ap-d37894","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nELMER ANTONIO NIETO, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37894","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"Elmer Antonio Nieto appealed his conviction for child molestation in the second degree following a jury trial. He argued the trial court plainly erred by not declaring a mistrial due to the State's closing argument, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The appellate court denied all three points on appeal, affirming the judgment of conviction. However, the court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to correct clerical errors in the written judgment via a nunc pro tunc order to accurately reflect the jury's verdicts.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207955","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-elmer-antonio-nieto-defendant-ap-d37894","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37648:2024-05-07","opinionId":"281d72a3-09e1-5d7e-9410-2ece060fd0d2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-james-norman-harper-defendant-ap-d37648","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nJAMES NORMAN HARPER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37648","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"James Norman Harper appealed his conviction for child molestation in the second degree, arguing the trial court plainly erred by admitting evidence of his uncharged sexual misconduct. Harper failed to preserve this claim for appellate review by not including it in his motion for new trial. The appellate court declined to review for plain error, finding Harper did not facially establish substantial grounds for believing manifest injustice occurred, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-james-norman-harper-defendant-ap-d37648","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37358:2024-03-15","opinionId":"d51bcdd2-5146-5f55-abe3-66d3b15421f9","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-joseph-p-salsman-defendant-appel-d37358","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nJOSEPH P. SALSMAN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37358","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-15","year":2024,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-joseph-p-salsman-defendant-appel-d37358","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37685:2024-03-12","opinionId":"74ba751f-fc47-5e0b-84bf-b37de1020b6d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-w-marrs-defendant-appella-d37685","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nSTEVEN W. MARRS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37685","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Steven W. Marrs was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and subsequently found by the circuit court to be a habitual DWI offender, enhancing his offense to a class-B felony. On appeal, Marrs challenged the habitual offender finding, arguing insufficient evidence for one of the alleged prior intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs) from Utah. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that even if the Utah conviction was excluded, the State's unchallenged evidence of other IRTOs was sufficient to support the habitual offender finding, and the circuit court was not required to specify which convictions it relied upon.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206391","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-steven-w-marrs-defendant-appella-d37685","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38020:2024-02-27","opinionId":"b0931c63-6f66-506c-9a0d-4fe4f55becda","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-callie-marie-flood-defendant-app-d38020","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCALLIE MARIE FLOOD, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38020","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Callie Marie Flood appealed a circuit court order requiring her to pay $21,000 in restitution, entered nine months after her conviction for misdemeanor stealing. The original judgment stated restitution was \"to be determined.\" The appellate court remanded the case, directing the circuit court to vacate the restitution order. It held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter a specific restitution amount after the final judgment, as the original judgment did not specify the amount, rendering the subsequent order void.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-callie-marie-flood-defendant-app-d38020","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37942:2024-02-26","opinionId":"a3ec617f-c587-567e-8678-28ee3fc47f37","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-timothy-wayne-hovis-defendant-ap-d37942","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nTIMOTHY WAYNE HOVIS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37942","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Timothy Wayne Hovis appealed his conviction for first-degree trespass, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he lacked permission to enter his ex-wife's residence. Hovis's ex-wife testified he was not invited and had a court order to stay away, and security footage showed him inside the home. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction, including reasonable inferences from Hovis's actions. The court found no merit in Hovis's argument that the State failed to present evidence from all residents.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205814","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-timothy-wayne-hovis-defendant-ap-d37942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37611:2024-02-01","opinionId":"7bb6f699-ad03-5131-9b8f-c8dec40f35ee","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-napoleon-emanuel-defendant-appel-d37611","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nNAPOLEON EMANUEL, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37611","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Napoleon Emanuel was convicted of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance in a protected location following a jury trial. On appeal, he argued the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous, a mandatory instruction. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the complete omission of the unanimity instruction, which was not otherwise conveyed, constituted plain error affecting the jury's verdict and resulting in manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205237","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-napoleon-emanuel-defendant-appel-d37611","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37827:2024-01-26","opinionId":"db468a2a-e0b8-58eb-84df-007916487d41","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keith-edward-mcintosh-defendant-d37827","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nKEITH EDWARD MCINTOSH, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37827","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Keith Edward McIntosh appealed his conviction for class A misdemeanor animal abuse, arguing there was insufficient evidence he purposely caused suffering to an animal. The trial court had found McIntosh guilty after a bench trial, based on witness testimony describing him swinging, choking, and slamming a dog's head into the ground. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for the trial court to reasonably conclude McIntosh acted with the conscious object of causing the dog to suffer.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-keith-edward-mcintosh-defendant-d37827","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37229:2024-01-11","opinionId":"95b10698-9e3f-585c-afba-36d5d2b776e6","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-moore-defendant-appellan-d37229","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nMICHAEL MOORE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37229","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Moore appealed his convictions for statutory rape and statutory sodomy, arguing the trial court erred by excluding the victim's first forensic interview. Moore contended the recording was admissible under a statute, to show the victim's demeanor, or under the rule of completeness. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review for the statutory and completeness arguments due to lack of preservation. The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding the full interview for demeanor evidence, as Moore had sufficient opportunity to impeach the victim's credibility through other means.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-moore-defendant-appellan-d37229","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37406:2024-01-03","opinionId":"3b639ce6-3e9f-55a8-823b-5743a9bd7c7e","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-brock-manuel-defenda-d37406","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nCHRISTOPHER BROCK MANUEL, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37406","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher Brock Manuel was convicted of second-degree murder and armed criminal action following a bench trial. On appeal, Manuel argued the trial court erred by admitting recorded jail calls between him and his ex-girlfriend, claiming they were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the phone calls were both logically and legally relevant to establish Manuel's involvement, motive, and consciousness of guilt, and that no prejudice resulted in the bench-tried case.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-brock-manuel-defenda-d37406","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37348:2023-12-12","opinionId":"f5f508a6-36ff-5e6e-81ff-222efa4d705f","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-joshua-j-brown-defendant-appella-d37348","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJOSHUA J. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37348","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Joshua Brown appealed his conviction for second-degree felony murder, raising four points concerning double jeopardy and the sufficiency of the evidence. Brown argued that collateral estoppel and double jeopardy principles should have precluded his prosecution, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove proximate cause for felony murder. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Brown's double jeopardy claims and concluding that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203495","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-joshua-j-brown-defendant-appella-d37348","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37886:2023-12-04","opinionId":"23af22c3-7666-557a-b72b-e81954e83fb7","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-jacob-smith-defendant-ap-d37886","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMICHAEL JACOB SMITH, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37886","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-04","year":2023,"display_summary":"Michael Smith was convicted of the class A misdemeanor of resisting a lawful stop following a jury trial. On appeal, Smith challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the State failed to prove he acted with the purpose of preventing the stop. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding ample evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer Smith's purpose to flee, based on his continuous actions while driving and on foot.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-jacob-smith-defendant-ap-d37886","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37599:2023-11-30","opinionId":"1f0daef6-21fe-54aa-819f-b99da44560f8","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-kristina-proctor-defendant-respon-d37599","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nKRISTINA PROCTOR, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37599","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kristina Proctor was charged with driving while intoxicated, and the trial court suppressed her breath test result because law enforcement read her Missouri's Implied Consent Statements before her Miranda rights. The State of Missouri filed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court reversed the suppression order, holding that Miranda warnings are not required before reading implied consent statements and requesting a breath test, as this process does not constitute a guilt-seeking interrogation. Consequently, the breath test result is admissible evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-appellant-v-kristina-proctor-defendant-respon-d37599","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37401:2023-11-29","opinionId":"6925ed39-137e-5046-b18f-5764aed24548","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alan-d-haneline-defendant-appell-d37401","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nALAN D. HANELINE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37401","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-29","year":2023,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alan-d-haneline-defendant-appell-d37401","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37692:2023-11-09","opinionId":"ee6b5c36-7fe9-5745-925c-d5bf4302dd04","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-william-c-willis-defendant-appel-d37692","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nWILLIAM C. WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37692","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"William C. Willis appealed his conviction for felony sexual misconduct involving a child, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of an alternative suspect, the victim's step-grandfather. Willis contended this evidence would show the step-grandfather had a motive and derived sexual gratification from abusing the victim, and that the victim was reluctant to accuse him. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the excluded evidence did not directly connect the step-grandfather to the charged crime and Willis failed to demonstrate outcome-determinative prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-william-c-willis-defendant-appel-d37692","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37514:2023-10-24","opinionId":"05d2c9ca-414a-5f0a-bf95-c90dd22b8208","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kevin-lee-hausmann-defendant-app-d37514","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKEVIN LEE HAUSMANN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37514","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kevin Lee Hausmann appealed his conviction for first-degree sodomy, raising two points: the exclusion of his wife from voir dire and a discrepancy between his oral and written sentence. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding his wife, who was a witness. However, the court agreed that the written judgment's 99-year sentence materially differed from the oral pronouncement of life in prison. The case was remanded for the circuit court to amend the written judgment to reflect a life sentence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kevin-lee-hausmann-defendant-app-d37514","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37758:2023-10-17","opinionId":"c85a43fc-6474-56bc-9371-888bb989da33","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-thaisen-paul-ollerich-defendant-d37758","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nTHAISEN PAUL OLLERICH, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37758","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Thaisen Ollerich appealed his convictions for four counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, arguing the trial court plainly erred by violating his double jeopardy rights. He contended that the statutory sodomy statute limits the unit of prosecution for acts occurring in a single incident, and there was no evidence the acts occurred at different times. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, declining plain error review because the double jeopardy allegation was not determinable from the face of the record.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-thaisen-paul-ollerich-defendant-d37758","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37762:2023-10-17","opinionId":"b843eb38-101f-54d5-b724-3471c8e571f0","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenny-jackson-defendant-appellan-d37762","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKENNY JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37762","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kenny Jackson appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, possession with intent to distribute, and unlawful firearm possession after a jury trial. The appellate court dismissed Jackson's appeal regarding the possession with intent to distribute charge as moot because the trial court had vacated his sentence and expunged related records in a separate proceeding. The court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no plain error in the jury instructions for drug trafficking and sufficient evidence to support the unlawful firearm possession conviction, and declining plain error review for other claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202154","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenny-jackson-defendant-appellan-d37762","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37531:2023-10-02","opinionId":"3f635677-6498-5e0f-9e09-468e99cfbcb2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jantzen-blake-strickland-defenda-d37531","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nJANTZEN BLAKE STRICKLAND, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37531","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-02","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jantzen Blake Strickland appealed his convictions for misdemeanor trespass, assault, and resisting arrest, following a jury trial. His sole point on appeal challenged the trial court's admission of an officer's testimony explaining why booking photos are sometimes not taken, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defense's opening statement opened the door to the testimony, and any error in its admission was harmless due to cumulative evidence.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jantzen-blake-strickland-defenda-d37531","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37806:2023-09-26","opinionId":"8efd542b-f6bf-5585-9f56-5ab5fa6c7839","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lakota-gilbert-tucker-defendant-d37806","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nLAKOTA GILBERT TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37806","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Lakota Gilbert Tucker appealed his convictions for murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting segments of his recorded jail calls as rebuttal evidence. Tucker claimed these statements were untrue due to hallucinations, but the State offered them to disprove his hallucination claim and attack his credibility regarding self-defense. The Southern District affirmed, finding the jail calls were proper rebuttal evidence as they tended to explain, counteract, or disprove defense evidence and were relevant to the jury's assessment of Tucker's credibility.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lakota-gilbert-tucker-defendant-d37806","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37719:2023-09-26","opinionId":"c185b296-d2f6-5164-ad8a-734782a76270","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-tyson-j-fairley-defendant-appell-d37719","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nTYSON J. FAIRLEY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37719","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyson Fairley appealed his convictions for first-degree rape and sodomy after a bench trial, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the victim's consent and the admission of electronic messages. The victim, ML, was heavily intoxicated and took Xanax, and her text messages indicated fear and impairment. Fairley's conduct and later messages also suggested awareness of her vulnerability. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no abuse of discretion in admitting the electronic messages.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201494","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-tyson-j-fairley-defendant-appell-d37719","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37522:2023-09-19","opinionId":"93775ed4-0676-5f5c-9c24-578bebbe6e9b","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kimberly-riston-defendant-appell-d37522","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKIMBERLY RISTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37522","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kimberly Riston appealed her convictions for second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree tampering with a motor vehicle, and armed criminal action. She contended the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a law enforcement witness's testimony regarding her intent and by not allowing a surveillance video of the crime to be shown during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in either ruling.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201258","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kimberly-riston-defendant-appell-d37522","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37722:2023-09-08","opinionId":"8c98e1a0-29b7-544d-a335-702ecd3432ce","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-tyman-devette-latin-defendant-ap-d37722","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nTYMAN DEVETTE LATIN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37722","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-08","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyman Devette Latin appealed his conviction for burglary, tampering with a motor vehicle, and assault, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial. The motion stemmed from the trial court mistakenly reading a voluntary intoxication instruction to the jury, despite having sustained Latin's objection to it, and then giving a curative instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Latin was not prejudiced by the erroneous instruction and subsequent curative instruction, nor by the prosecutor's brief reference to an alcoholic beverage during closing arguments.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-tyman-devette-latin-defendant-ap-d37722","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37585:2023-09-06","opinionId":"abbdd3b1-4f1d-526e-a6ac-75841424624c","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-b-shultz-defendant-a-d37585","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCHRISTOPHER B. SHULTZ, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37585","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Christopher Shultz appealed his conviction for two counts of tampering with a judicial officer, prosecuting attorney Amanda Oesch, following a jury trial. Shultz challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of prior bad acts, and the denial of his motion for a change of judge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions, declining plain error review for the prior bad acts, and concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the change of judge motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-b-shultz-defendant-a-d37585","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37363:2023-09-06","opinionId":"1747029d-2fc8-50bb-bf91-f699de57ff3f","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ira-s-bruce-defendant-appellant-d37363","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nIRA S. BRUCE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37363","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Ira S. Bruce appealed his conviction for first-degree assault, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for intent, the trial court's denial of a mistrial after a prosecutor's line of questioning, and the denial of a mistrial or quashing of the jury pool during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction, no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial given curative actions, and no plain error regarding the jury pool as the venireperson's statements were not inflammatory.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ira-s-bruce-defendant-appellant-d37363","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37780:2023-08-30","opinionId":"33df4b1b-f4fa-5f87-a8d7-d46656e51e76","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-n-johnson-defendant-d37780","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCHRISTOPHER N. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37780","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Christopher Johnson appealed his convictions for first-degree domestic assault and armed criminal action, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he and the victim were in a \"continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature\" as required by statute. He also contended that the armed criminal action conviction failed due to the alleged lack of an underlying felony. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for both the domestic assault and the armed criminal action charges.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200516","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-n-johnson-defendant-d37780","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37508:2023-08-30","opinionId":"4192095c-eeff-5ea7-b8b7-6f9912318096","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-martin-hamilton-jr-defendan-d37508","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nJOHN MARTIN HAMILTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37508","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"John Martin Hamilton, Jr. appealed his conviction for tampering with a victim, arguing insufficient evidence because his estranged wife had an absolute right to spousal privilege, which he claimed negated an element of the offense. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. It held that the tampering statute only requires an attempt to prevent or dissuade a victim from assisting in prosecution, and offering money to drop charges satisfies this, irrespective of spousal privilege.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-martin-hamilton-jr-defendan-d37508","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37718:2023-08-07","opinionId":"1e524ed2-c52b-58cf-b06b-3efa7dd2b526","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alphonse-d-avila-defendant-appel-d37718","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nALPHONSE D. AVILA, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37718","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Alphonse Avila was convicted of felony distribution of a controlled substance in a protected location and felony delivery of a controlled substance after a jury trial. On appeal, Avila challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the State failed to prove he knowingly distributed drugs within 2,000 feet of a school and that he was not entrapped. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for both the proximity to the school and to rebut Avila's entrapment defense.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-alphonse-d-avila-defendant-appel-d37718","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37373:2023-08-04","opinionId":"d93924d1-438e-5da9-b5f7-8fb9f52bd3a4","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-benny-lynn-johnson-defendant-app-d37373","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nBENNY LYNN JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37373","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-04","year":2023,"display_summary":"Benny Lynn Johnson was convicted of three counts of driving while intoxicated resulting in death and two counts of leaving the scene of an accident. On appeal, Johnson argued that his two convictions for leaving the scene of an accident violated double jeopardy and that the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no double jeopardy violation because each distinct impact constituted a separate accident under the statute, and no abuse of discretion regarding the juror's brief, unrelated conversation with a witness.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","auto-accident","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198255","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-benny-lynn-johnson-defendant-app-d37373","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37587:2023-07-31","opinionId":"ff99b50d-81b0-56f3-8698-6a73528f4f2a","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-raymond-cross-defendant-appellan-d37587","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nRAYMOND CROSS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37587","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Raymond Cross appealed his conviction for felony resisting arrest, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he knew or reasonably should have known Sergeant Borders was arresting him when he fled. The trial court had denied his motions for judgment of acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude Cross knew or should have known he was being arrested.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-raymond-cross-defendant-appellan-d37587","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37173:2023-07-28","opinionId":"d5c3be43-b433-5e9e-8b8e-6a681f093ea2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-mitchell-brumfield-defendant-app-d37173","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMITCHELL BRUMFIELD, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37173","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mitchell Brumfield appealed his convictions for abuse or neglect of a child and second-degree murder, challenging the trial court's admission of autopsy photographs and a police officer's use of a doll to demonstrate how the victim's injuries could have occurred. The appellate court affirmed the convictions. It found no abuse of discretion in admitting the autopsy photographs as they were relevant to the victim's condition and assisted the medical expert's testimony. The court also found no abuse of discretion in allowing the officer to use the doll, as he was qualified as an expert on traumatic brain injury mechanisms, and the testimony was cumulative.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-mitchell-brumfield-defendant-app-d37173","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37623:2023-07-25","opinionId":"9ce6d010-fffd-5b3b-9733-361b9c4c497d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-louis-anthony-mealer-defendant-a-d37623","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nLOUIS ANTHONY MEALER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37623","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Louis Anthony Mealer was convicted of multiple counts including first-degree statutory sodomy and child molestation. On appeal, Mealer claimed the circuit court erred by not allowing him to testify about his belief that the victim fabricated allegations and by failing to provide a functioning auxiliary listening device, thus warranting a mistrial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in either claim, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony and declining plain error review for the mistrial request.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-louis-anthony-mealer-defendant-a-d37623","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37678:2023-07-25","opinionId":"e2ff3223-62c5-561f-8ec9-b0c06ac078d2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-stephen-gregory-perry-defendant-d37678","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI , Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nSTEPHEN GREGORY PERRY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37678","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Stephen Gregory Perry was found guilty of first-degree statutory sodomy and sentenced to life in prison. In a prior appeal, his conviction was upheld, but his life sentence was vacated because he was erroneously sentenced as a predatory sexual offender. Upon remand, the circuit court again imposed a life sentence. In this appeal, Perry claimed the life sentence was grossly disproportionate and violated his constitutional rights. The appellate court declined plain-error review and affirmed the judgment, finding no facial manifest injustice as the sentence was within the statutory range.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197895","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-stephen-gregory-perry-defendant-d37678","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37330:2023-06-30","opinionId":"8b2235e9-3ac3-58de-a97c-657ab9da7fe7","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-seth-andrew-gomez-defendant-appe-d37330","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nSETH ANDREW GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37330","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Seth Andrew Gomez was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action following a bench trial. On appeal, Gomez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove deliberation for the first-degree murder conviction, arguing the evidence was circumstantial, his drug use negated intent, and a key witness was incredible. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence, including pre- and post-murder conduct, was sufficient to establish deliberation, and that voluntary intoxication and witness credibility issues do not negate a finding of deliberation by the trier of fact.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197154","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-seth-andrew-gomez-defendant-appe-d37330","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37596:2023-06-13","opinionId":"56fdfc94-19fd-5645-9b73-838892f335be","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lonnie-james-skelton-defendant-a-d37596","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nLONNIE JAMES SKELTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37596","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Lonnie Skelton was convicted of first-degree assault and armed criminal action following a bench trial. On appeal, Skelton argued that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to withdraw his jury-trial waiver, asserting a conflict of interest with his former counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as there was no actual conflict of interest or appearance of unfairness, and granting the withdrawal would have caused hardship to the court and other litigants.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lonnie-james-skelton-defendant-a-d37596","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37542:2023-05-30","opinionId":"c53a9001-3326-5c1d-baf4-2b6686debcca","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-james-cooper-defendant-ap-d37542","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nROBERT JAMES COOPER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37542","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-30","year":2023,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196055","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-james-cooper-defendant-ap-d37542","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37607:2023-05-23","opinionId":"d24fa8a9-3bee-57fc-b848-07aaa3e0eee5","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jerry-r-yoakum-defendant-appella-d37607","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJERRY R. YOAKUM, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37607","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-23","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jerry R. Yoakum appealed his convictions for child molestation and sexual misconduct, arguing the circuit court erred by not allowing his expert witness to testify about flaws in the forensic interview techniques used with the victim. The appellate court affirmed the convictions. It held that Yoakum failed to preserve the claim for appellate review because he did not make an offer of proof at trial regarding the expert's excluded testimony. The court also declined to exercise its discretion to conduct plain-error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195861","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-jerry-r-yoakum-defendant-appella-d37607","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37563:2023-05-12","opinionId":"aebd63f9-d9cf-5022-8545-c43a683bda4e","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-daniel-a-burpo-defendant-appella-d37563","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDANIEL A. BURPO, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37563","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Daniel Burpo appealed his conviction for attempt to manufacture less than 35 grams of marijuana, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender. The trial court had entered a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to prove Burpo attempted to manufacture marijuana because the State failed to show he had anything to do with growing the plants. The case was remanded with instructions to discharge Burpo on the manufacturing offense and to show his acquittal on the possession charge.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-daniel-a-burpo-defendant-appella-d37563","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37396:2023-04-18","opinionId":"0191c5a7-947c-5924-8fcd-dcd67dea78a2","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-anthony-nugent-defendant-d37396","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMICHAEL ANTHONY NUGENT, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37396","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Michael Anthony Nugent was convicted of first-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action after a bench trial. On appeal, Nugent argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession and that there was insufficient evidence to prove deliberation for the first-degree murder charge. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress and concluding that sufficient evidence supported the deliberation element.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194670","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-anthony-nugent-defendant-d37396","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37489:2023-04-14","opinionId":"e3cba432-24c7-5b96-89ec-447d85b05dba","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenneth-l-livingston-defendant-a-d37489","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKENNETH L. LIVINGSTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37489","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kenneth Livingston appealed his convictions for murder and assault, arguing the trial court improperly admitted audio recordings of conversations with his wife and expert testimony on domestic abuse. Livingston contended the recordings were protected by marital privilege and the expert testimony lacked evidentiary basis. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that marital privilege did not apply to threats of future crime or when the marriage was effectively over, and that sufficient evidence of domestic violence existed to support the expert testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","divorce","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenneth-l-livingston-defendant-a-d37489","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37427:2023-03-28","opinionId":"4e8f5701-32f2-5d5c-8ade-36f915b3fa09","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-a-hayes-defendant-appellant-d37427","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJOHN A. HAYES, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37427","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"John A. Hayes appealed his convictions for first-degree statutory rape and sodomy, arguing that the verdict-directing instructions violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict in a \"multiple-acts\" case. Hayes contended the instructions failed to identify specific incidents the jury needed to agree upon. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, denying plain-error review because the case did not present distinct criminal acts as contemplated by precedent, and the defense strategy at trial was to challenge the victim's credibility rather than differentiate between acts.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193734","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-john-a-hayes-defendant-appellant-d37427","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37354:2023-03-22","opinionId":"781caa7f-ba04-5238-a789-735e91342c38","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-michael-king-defendant-app-d37354","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDAVID MICHAEL KING, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37354","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-22","year":2023,"display_summary":"David Michael King was found guilty after a bench trial of multiple counts of statutory sodomy and child molestation. On appeal, King argued the trial court erred by denying his request for a continuance of the sentencing hearing and by finding him a predatory sexual offender under an incorrect statute. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the oral continuance motion and declining plain error review on the statutory citation issue.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-david-michael-king-defendant-app-d37354","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37453:2023-03-13","opinionId":"2903268c-bdb6-504b-8e7e-0862bf98792d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bryan-s-jones-defendant-appellan-d37453","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nBRYAN S. JONES, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37453","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Bryan S. Jones appealed his convictions on multiple felony and misdemeanor counts, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sever the offenses. The State charged Jones with numerous crimes, including forgery, stealing, tampering, and fraudulent use of credit cards, which occurred over several months. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Jones failed to demonstrate particularized prejudice, and the evidence for each charge was straightforward and distinct, allowing the jury to consider each count separately.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bryan-s-jones-defendant-appellan-d37453","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37547:2023-03-07","opinionId":"89869da8-c55c-58ae-9648-9b1dff1713fd","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-gerald-henry-young-jr-defendant-d37547","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nGERALD HENRY YOUNG, Jr., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37547","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Gerald Henry Young, Jr. appealed his convictions for first-degree statutory sodomy and furnishing pornographic materials to a minor, arguing the trial court plainly erred by admitting certain forensic interviewer testimony and that the written judgment contained an inconsistent sentence. The appellate court affirmed Young's convictions, declining plain error review on the testimony issue. However, it found merit in the sentencing discrepancy and remanded the case for the circuit court to amend the written judgment to reflect the orally pronounced life imprisonment sentence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193154","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-gerald-henry-young-jr-defendant-d37547","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"}]}