{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official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.","topic":{"slug":"evidence","label":"Evidence","description":null,"totalCases":1337,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":132},{"year":2019,"count":151},{"year":2020,"count":172},{"year":2021,"count":135},{"year":2022,"count":103},{"year":2023,"count":175},{"year":2024,"count":217},{"year":2025,"count":206},{"year":2026,"count":46}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38930:2026-03-12","opinionId":"b24b5946-b852-57a0-bf07-7965aa7af496","slug":"paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","caseName":"PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents\nv.\nWAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38930","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Paul and Jacqueline Metzger obtained summary judgment for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway located between their home and their neighbors, Wayne and Kathy Morelock. The Morelocks appealed, challenging the summary judgment on two points: that the elements for a prescriptive easement were not met, and that the trial court erred in considering an affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the undisputed facts established the prescriptive easement and that the affidavit was properly considered.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113080:2026-03-10","opinionId":"9a1eb16d-5471-53da-b68b-9ea0ef8cdc59","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113080","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"James McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault and property damage, raising two unpreserved claims of error concerning the admission of prior threats and the amount of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund (CVC) judgment. The appellate court declined plain error review for the evidence admissibility claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it granted plain error review for the CVC judgment, concluding the trial court erred by imposing a $46 judgment for a Class E felony, which was not authorized by the applicable statute at the time of the offense. The court modified the CVC judgment to $10 and affirmed the judgment as modified.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87987:2026-03-10","opinionId":"a8ee5891-ab55-58e3-98e0-42e18c2cbd32","slug":"ljf-v-jfg-d87987","caseName":"L.J.F.\nvs.\nJ.F.G.","caseNumber":"WD87987","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-03-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Father appealed a circuit court judgment renewing a full order of protection against him for Mother, effective for his lifetime. Father contended the evidence was insufficient to justify renewal and that the judgment lacked sufficient findings for a lifetime order. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of stalking to warrant renewal and concluding that Father failed to preserve his claim regarding the sufficiency of findings for appellate review.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ljf-v-jfg-d87987","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87720:2026-03-03","opinionId":"e0998356-8d04-5a61-9bed-d11d787fb2db","slug":"kevin-rosenbohm-trustee-of-the-kevin-and-michele-rosenbohm-family-trust-d-d87720","caseName":"Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm\nvs.\nGregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust","caseNumber":"WD87720","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-03-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Gregory Stiens, individually and as trustee, appealed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims, and against Stiens's counterclaims. Stiens challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the property description in the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on all points of error raised by Stiens regarding the trial proceedings and outcomes. However, the court remanded the case for the circuit court to amend the judgment to include proper legal descriptions of the disputed property awarded to the Rosenbohms.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-rosenbohm-trustee-of-the-kevin-and-michele-rosenbohm-family-trust-d-d87720","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38782:2026-02-25","opinionId":"f42d16a4-830c-5966-b1f7-cb4be213a97f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-russell-kenneth-clancy-appellant-d38782","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nRUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38782","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-25","year":2026,"display_summary":"Russell Kenneth Clancy appealed his conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted recklessly when he punched a law enforcement officer. The incident occurred during an altercation where Clancy, who was intoxicated, became belligerent and resisted arrest. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial testimony and body camera footage provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Clancy acted recklessly.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-russell-kenneth-clancy-appellant-d38782","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"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101091:2026-02-24","opinionId":"205e275f-5c24-5dfd-b38f-6c1079796a88","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC101091","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging a forklift was defectively designed and caused his injuries. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding his testimony lacked reliable methodology, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Crown Equipment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert, and without that testimony, no genuine issue of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231455","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-appellant-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-respondents-101091","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101218:2026-02-24","opinionId":"48e594d4-de4b-58d8-b1ec-42b01ba8dee9","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-101218","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101218","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing the state failed to prove one of his prior offenses was an intoxication-related traffic offense (IRTO) for chronic offender enhancement. The circuit court had sentenced Peters as a chronic offender based on four prior IRTOs, including a 2002 municipal offense. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, holding that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2002 offense involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, as required by the current definition of \"driving\" for IRTOs.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-101218","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112976:2026-02-17","opinionId":"4a907936-c5a1-5441-8ec9-edce2518f829","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-d-walton-appellant-112976","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112976","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to police. Walton contended his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to police deception about the true nature of the investigation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Walton's waiver was voluntary because he was informed of his rights, understood them, and continued speaking with detectives, consistent with prior case law.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-d-walton-appellant-112976","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113261:2026-02-17","opinionId":"d93ee86c-ba6f-5fc9-937d-0965c6252917","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113261","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction after a bench trial for violating a full order of protection. He argued the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he had legal or actual notice of the order. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of Nytes's presence at the order of protection hearing and his prior guilty pleas for violating the same order were sufficient to establish actual notice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231041","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","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":"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113255:2026-02-10","opinionId":"c07b96f9-e129-5551-baaf-1204638e366b","slug":"derrie-s-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113255","caseName":"Derrie S. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113255","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Williams argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allow him to testify and for failing to investigate and call two witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that its findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous regarding both claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230836","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derrie-s-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113255","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113233:2026-02-10","opinionId":"e4a57fae-8094-567f-863a-75f192cf3669","slug":"daniel-t-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113233","caseName":"Daniel T. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113233","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Daniel Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental state. Williams contended that such an investigation could have revealed mental health issues relevant to a diminished capacity defense. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Williams failed to demonstrate how additional information about his mental state would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230835","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-t-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113233","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"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101172:2026-02-03","opinionId":"cfcbbb06-e60d-5ad6-8dc4-b10b4720bcd1","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-appellant-101172","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Amanda Joy Rogers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101172","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Amanda Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court held that the state presented sufficient evidence of Rogers' knowing possession of the firearm, rejecting the requirement for 'additional incriminating evidence' in joint possession cases. It also found that law enforcement had probable cause for the vehicle search based on an informant's tip and other circumstances.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-appellant-101172","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38798:2026-02-03","opinionId":"61e9a65d-bab3-54ea-8990-671bdf26d4a8","slug":"carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","caseName":"CARL CAMERON FERGUSON, Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38798","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Carl Cameron Ferguson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call a specific witness. The motion court denied relief, finding Ferguson's pro se motion facially deficient and, alternatively, that the decision not to call the witness was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, agreeing that the pro se motion was deficient and that the trial counsel's decision was a matter of reasonable trial strategy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","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"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101152:2026-02-03","opinionId":"4993f108-9a01-5508-9b69-5087bb46d5b4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-keith-eggleston-appellant-101152","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Keith Eggleston, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101152","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"James Eggleston appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly possessed methamphetamine found in a vehicle he was driving. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, clarifying that the plain language of the relevant statutes does not require \"additional incriminating evidence\" to establish possession in shared spaces, thereby rejecting prior case law. The Court found sufficient evidence that Eggleston was in actual possession of the methamphetamine and acted knowingly, supported by circumstantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-keith-eggleston-appellant-101152","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113257:2026-01-13","opinionId":"54f308ed-bb84-5c41-b22f-2389f0293b73","slug":"harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","caseName":"Harry Little, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113257","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Harry Little appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and failing to argue a specific alternate perpetrator. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the alibi witness's testimony was not viable and that presenting a general alternate perpetrator theory was a reasonable strategic choice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112791:2026-01-13","opinionId":"2844b7d2-d205-5b01-b723-faea0d5c391b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Lematty, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112791","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Lematty appealed his convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree burglary, alleging instructional errors, improper admission and exclusion of evidence, and insufficient evidence for burglary. The appellate court reversed Lematty's second-degree burglary conviction, finding plain error in the verdict directing instruction that misstated the law by potentially excusing the State from proving the unlawful entry element. The court affirmed the first-degree rape conviction and all other challenged aspects of the trial court's judgment.","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=229834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","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"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101157:2026-01-13","opinionId":"0337ba9b-2357-5e36-a3d9-78eb4c402946","slug":"in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","caseName":"In re:  Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101157","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Attorney Mark W. Arensberg faced disciplinary proceedings for negligently drafting fraudulent loan documents for a client involved in a contentious divorce. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended a reprimand, but the Missouri Supreme Court conducted an independent de novo review. The Court found Arensberg acted knowingly, not negligently, in assisting his client to diminish the marital estate. Consequently, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension of Arensberg's law license, which was stayed pending the successful completion of a one-year probation period.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229860","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-mark-w-arensberg-respondent-101157","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100874:2026-01-13","opinionId":"256384ec-b1e1-5cf5-b792-4e5a34a6cf1f","slug":"craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","caseName":"Craig M. Wood, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100874","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Craig M. Wood appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief from his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the abduction and murder of Hailey Owens. Wood raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Wood failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229859","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113150:2025-12-30","opinionId":"a22c9abc-e1e5-59d3-b995-3fab89f37e3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jayelyn Z. Rivers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113150","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jayelyn Rivers appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting arrest, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the unlawful possession conviction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to infer Rivers had actual, knowing possession of the firearm. This evidence included the gun's location under his seat, his superior access, its visibility, and his flight from law enforcement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","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"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc101178:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d3a2f1f8-f64a-5f69-8e10-c93e36771de2","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Israel Barrera, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101178","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Israel Barrera moved to suppress urine test results obtained via two warrants in a sexual molestation case. The circuit court sustained the motion, finding a lack of probable cause for Warrant 1 and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the affidavit for Warrant 1 provided a substantial basis for probable cause, particularly due to corroborative details of the victim's medical examination. The Court affirmed that Warrant 1 authorized both seizure and search, rendering Warrant 2 unnecessary, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112946:2025-12-23","opinionId":"f5e1bb3c-8dbc-59cc-a360-505566d214ea","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-emonne-w-dillon-appellant-112946","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Emonne W. Dillon, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112946","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Emonne Dillon appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shooting that occurred during a brawl. Dillon argued the trial court erred by refusing his non-MAI instructions on imperfect self-defense, denying his motion to strike a juror for cause, and admitting hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions, juror selection, or the admission of the challenged statement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-emonne-w-dillon-appellant-112946","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112762:2025-12-16","opinionId":"c92b5cc2-c426-5520-b878-4f2e407256c4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Shawn Ray Hollingshead, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112762","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shawn Ray Hollingshead appealed his jury convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an undisclosed rebuttal witness to counter his alibi defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hollingshead failed to provide proper notice of his intent to rely on an alibi defense, which relieved the State of its duty to disclose the rebuttal witness. Furthermore, the court found that his wife's testimony did not constitute a true alibi because it did not account for his whereabouts for the entire charging period.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87646:2025-12-16","opinionId":"719ec01b-065b-5e87-93ba-ae7c84d1d7fb","slug":"cody-joseph-enderle-guardian-of-the-person-of-charles-fredrick-enderle-ii-d87646","caseName":"Cody Joseph Enderle, Guardian of the Person of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, an Incapacitated Person, and Conservator of the Estate of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, a Disabled Person\nvs.","caseNumber":"WD87646","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cody Enderle, as guardian and conservator for his father Charles Enderle, sued Richard Gercken and Gercken Kelsey L.L.C. to void a real estate transaction, alleging Charles lacked mental capacity, was unduly influenced, and the terms were unconscionable. The circuit court directed a verdict on the undue influence claim, a jury found Charles had contractual capacity, and the court ruled against unconscionability and granted Gercken's counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the directed verdict, jury instructions, or the court's rulings on unconscionability and evidence.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228569","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cody-joseph-enderle-guardian-of-the-person-of-charles-fredrick-enderle-ii-d87646","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87887:2025-12-16","opinionId":"09fd7f9b-a2be-5246-b8a4-7480de898839","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","caseName":"In the Interest of: J.H., K.H., T.H., Juveniles; Juvenile Officer\nvs.\nJ.M.S.","caseNumber":"WD87887","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mother J.M.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her three children, J.M.H., K.M.H., and T.M.H., by the Jackson County Circuit Court. The trial court based its decision on findings of abuse and neglect, and parental unfitness, concluding termination was in the children's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's determination that Mother committed severe and recurrent physical abuse, and that termination was in the children's best interest.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228558","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jh-kh-th-juveniles-juvenile-officer-v-jms-d87887","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","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"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112921:2025-12-09","opinionId":"32d73aa0-fa8c-5b56-afba-55f4636e3939","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Preston Gremminger, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112921","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Preston Gremminger was convicted by a jury of two counts of statutory sodomy, one count of statutory rape, and two counts of incest, receiving a 128-year prison sentence. On appeal, Gremminger claimed the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of a victim's prior sexual abuse allegation, improperly admitting propensity evidence, and rejecting lesser-included offense instructions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on these issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113152:2025-12-09","opinionId":"d092a53b-584d-50a5-959e-ec010888ed53","slug":"in-the-interest-of-wmh-113152","caseName":"In the interest of:  W.M.H.","caseNumber":"ED113152","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"W.M.H. appealed the juvenile court's judgment committing him to the Division of Youth Services after he was adjudicated delinquent for second-degree tampering and possession of a controlled substance. W.M.H. argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he purposely or knowingly rode unlawfully in another's automobile. The appellate court reversed the adjudication for second-degree tampering, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the requisite mental state, but affirmed the judgment otherwise.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-wmh-113152","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87315:2025-12-02","opinionId":"df04912a-d16b-5bc7-b549-3c5d5ef3d61b","slug":"randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","caseName":"Randa M. Techtow\nvs.\nJesse T. Techtow","caseNumber":"WD87315","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Randa Techtow filed for dissolution of marriage, and a default judgment was entered against Jesse Techtow after he failed to respond. Jesse Techtow subsequently filed motions to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause for his failure to respond and intrinsic fraud by Randa regarding marital property. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or in excluding certain evidence.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/randa-m-techtow-v-jesse-t-techtow-d87315","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112852:2025-12-02","opinionId":"d8b3ac30-ce1e-5d04-ba28-500b212e2638","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric A. Pritchett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112852","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Eric A. Pritchett appealed his convictions for stealing and two counts of burglary, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, the admission of screenshots under the best evidence rule, and the enhancement of his sentence as a persistent offender. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence to prove the value of the stolen laptops exceeded $25,000, and determined the best evidence rule was not violated because witnesses testified only about admitted screenshots, not the original unavailable video. The court also declined plain error review for the sentence enhancement, noting Pritchett was on notice of the State's intent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228696","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112740:2025-11-25","opinionId":"5a3869a8-829e-5e14-ba70-6626baa67b92","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Oscar M. Ward III, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112740","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Oscar Ward was convicted of kidnapping and domestic assault. On appeal, Ward argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting a computer-enhanced 911 call that was disclosed to the defense only one week before trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the late disclosure did not result in fundamental unfairness or prejudice to Ward, especially since he did not request a continuance and the evidence was cumulative of other testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113129:2025-11-25","opinionId":"478a621b-29d7-5577-bc30-99f4bd038c26","slug":"matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","caseName":"Matthew J. Callow, Respondent, v. Danielle N. Callow, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113129","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Danielle Callow (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Matthew Callow (Father). Mother challenged the denial of maintenance, the child support calculation, the division of marital property and uninsured medical bills, and the denial of her motion for newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding no abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227780","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-j-callow-respondent-v-danielle-n-callow-appellant-113129","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87238:2025-11-12","opinionId":"22b45ab0-334e-527f-b0ac-1c651aed4fe5","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nPatrick Logan Pulse","caseNumber":"WD87238","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Patrick Logan Pulse appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, stemming from shooting a Lyft driver, arguing self-defense at trial. On appeal, Pulse challenged the admission of three pieces of evidence: a video of his arrest, a video of him in a police car post-arrest, and his hospital records showing controlled substances. He also claimed instructional error for the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the defense of others. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, finding no merit to Pulse's claims of error regarding evidence admission or instructional error.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112696:2025-11-12","opinionId":"4cf5a82b-33b5-516f-ab4b-951cf012d31e","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-danielle-lechocki-appellant-112696","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Danielle Lechocki, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112696","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Danielle Lechocki appealed her conviction for attempted unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the trial court erred by refusing a self-defense jury instruction. She contended there was substantial evidence to support such an instruction, including conflicting testimony about who initiated the confrontation and her reasonable fear of imminent unlawful force given her physical condition. The appellate court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding the case for retrial, holding that the evidence required a self-defense instruction and that factual issues regarding the degree of force and its justification were for the jury.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-danielle-lechocki-appellant-112696","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113032:2025-11-12","opinionId":"f739e9e2-6aab-5119-88b0-aa2027f75f85","slug":"david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","caseName":"David O. Love, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113032","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Love appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for making gang references during voir dire, failing to include a limiting instruction for prior bad acts in jury instructions, and failing to quash the jury panel due to a fair cross-section violation. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that while his amended motion was untimely and counsel abandoned him, remand was unnecessary, and Love failed to prove his ineffective assistance claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87377:2025-11-12","opinionId":"5a507ea8-23e6-57a7-abb8-fc794484cd3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJonathan Edward Rainey","caseNumber":"WD87377","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jonathan Rainey appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the protective search of Rainey's person and vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search was supported by probable cause, thus the evidence was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","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"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100967:2025-11-04","opinionId":"94298e62-47a0-5106-8990-dd89cddc7d96","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Amanda M. Mire, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100967","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the circuit court's order sustaining Amanda Mire's motion to suppress certain statements and evidence in a driving while intoxicated case. The circuit court initially made a docket entry on February 26, 2024, suppressing the evidence, and later entered a more formal \"judgment and order\" on March 11, 2024. The State filed its notice of appeal on March 11, 2024. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the February 26 docket entry was the operative order, and the State failed to file its notice of appeal within the statutory five-day period from that date.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113024:2025-10-28","opinionId":"b908d09d-08cc-56e4-a084-6f07ad1f8375","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-mary-j-barton-appellant-113024","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Mary J. Barton, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113024","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary Barton appealed her conviction for false impersonation, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the victim relied on her pretended official authority. The trial court had found Barton guilty after a bench trial, sentencing her to 180 days in jail. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the victim's actions, both during and after the phone call, demonstrated reliance on Barton's representation as a law enforcement investigator.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226795","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-mary-j-barton-appellant-113024","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87231:2025-10-28","opinionId":"11cba625-1bca-5240-bdbe-61ddaa2d6027","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nAshontai Samuel Wallace","caseNumber":"WD87231","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ashontai Wallace appealed his convictions for first-degree robbery, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, and three counts of armed criminal action, arguing the evidence was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed all convictions. It found sufficient independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti for robbery and that the victims were confined for a \"substantial period\" for the kidnapping charges, rejecting Wallace's \"merely incidental\" argument based on a recent Supreme Court ruling.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113128:2025-10-21","opinionId":"69413a86-b50a-5a46-9db9-55084ce0c00d","slug":"timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","caseName":"Timothy Perkins, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113128","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Timothy Perkins appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the victim about alleged habits of stealing and lying in his statutory sodomy trial. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that counsel's choice not to pursue that specific line of questioning was a reasonable strategic decision, especially given the trial court's prior rulings and counsel's alternative methods of challenging credibility.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113096:2025-10-21","opinionId":"7be37459-ae35-5874-a185-fd6ae476fb70","slug":"ralph-alexander-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113096","caseName":"Ralph Alexander, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113096","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ralph Alexander appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Alexander claimed counsel failed to investigate an alibi witness, failed to file a motion in limine to exclude prior bad acts evidence, and improperly elicited hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Alexander failed to demonstrate prejudice or that counsel's actions fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ralph-alexander-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113096","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87399:2025-10-07","opinionId":"6dbbbaaf-99a5-5420-b52e-c58aeba1274c","slug":"hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","caseName":"Hernandez Campbell\nvs. \nAdecco USA, INC.","caseNumber":"WD87399","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Hernandez Campbell sued Adecco USA, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to employment background checks. The trial court granted summary judgment for Adecco on Campbell's disclosure and authorization claims. On appeal, Campbell raised four points, challenging the trial court's reliance on affidavits, the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the provision of a consumer notification, the clarity and conspicuousness of the notification, and the dismissal with prejudice. The Western District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on the affidavits, Campbell's failure to properly support his factual assertions, and the merits-based disposition.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112788:2025-09-30","opinionId":"598c52c9-874b-5c89-811e-3b7a4f4eb524","slug":"mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","caseName":"Mose L. Martin, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112788","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mose Martin appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, following his conviction for first-degree assault. Martin claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a lay witness to impeach the victim's credibility and for failing to call an expert witness to testify about memory impairment caused by crack cocaine use. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that trial counsel's actions were reasonable and that Martin failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113206:2025-09-30","opinionId":"b2b98569-bf73-553d-85df-5159bdc129c5","slug":"jeanette-a-vogt-respondent-v-walls-real-estate-company-appellant-113206","caseName":"Jeanette A. Vogt, Respondent, vs. Walls Real Estate Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113206","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeanette A. Vogt sued Walls Real Estate Company for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and Walls Real Estate filed a counterclaim. The trial court entered judgment for Vogt after Walls Real Estate failed to appear at trial and subsequently denied its motions to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment because counsel's absence was a deliberate choice. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported Vogt's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and the award of attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanette-a-vogt-respondent-v-walls-real-estate-company-appellant-113206","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38913:2025-09-26","opinionId":"6317ac10-5021-5ce4-91a9-f5930b90078e","slug":"in-the-interest-of-jhb-and-jab-minor-children-greene-county-juvenile-offi-d38913","caseName":"In the Interest of:  J.H.B. and J.A.B, minor children, GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nJ.E.B., JR., Natural Father, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38913","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father appealed the juvenile court's judgments of adjudication and disposition that placed his children under the care and control of the juvenile court and Children's Division. The juvenile court found the children in need of care and treatment based on Father's criminal history, but rejected allegations of domestic violence. The appellate court vacated the judgments, holding that the juvenile officer failed to present substantial evidence linking Father's past criminal history to a likelihood of future harm to the children, and that the juvenile court improperly relied on evidence against the Mother to the detriment of the Father.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225253","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-jhb-and-jab-minor-children-greene-county-juvenile-offi-d38913","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":24,"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38242:2025-09-25","opinionId":"1468450f-6b40-5dd6-896a-36ce7a8dee8d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nORLANDO C. MOORE, SR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38242","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Orlando Moore appealed his convictions for second-degree domestic assault and first-degree property damage following a bench trial. Moore challenged the admission of the victim's statements to police under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception and raised a Sixth Amendment confrontation-clause claim. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the victim's statements because Moore's manipulative actions caused her unavailability, and declined plain error review of the unpreserved confrontation-clause claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225214","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38916:2025-09-24","opinionId":"a5ffa1f2-dd41-51d9-9b74-c199de26b9a0","slug":"robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","caseName":"ROBERT BYERS, Appellant\nv.\nNEW PRIME, INC., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38916","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Byers, a truck driver, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's award of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, contending that the evidence overwhelmingly proved he was permanently and totally disabled (PTD). The Commission had found Byers not credible based on surveillance video and rejected his experts' opinions, instead relying on the employer's medical expert. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's award, holding that it was supported by competent and substantial evidence and that the court would not substitute its judgment on witness credibility or the weight of competing medical opinions.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-byers-appellant-v-new-prime-inc-respondent-d38916","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112755:2025-09-23","opinionId":"97f418e2-82ce-5ac8-b0c2-39cdc866a3be","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shyheim El-Mumin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112755","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shyheim El-Mumin appealed his convictions for assault, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage, challenging the admission of firearm examiner testimony and the trial court's persistent offender finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the challenge to the firearm examiner's testimony unpreserved and waived, and held that the defendant's admission to prior felonies committed at different times obviated the need for a jury finding on persistent offender status, even under Erlinger v. United States.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","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"}]},{"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112914:2025-09-23","opinionId":"c93e72ae-0625-5697-bd72-6bd2b0558c31","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Kevin P. Coplin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112914","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kevin P. Coplin was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of child molestation first degree. On appeal, Coplin argued the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his request for a mistrial after the State asked a question on re-direct examination that he claimed improperly implied a prior bad act. The Eastern District affirmed the conviction, holding that the defense had \"opened the door\" to the line of questioning, the question was unanswered, and any potential prejudice was negated by jury instructions and the jury's mixed verdict.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112866:2025-09-23","opinionId":"70c302a5-4646-50a4-8600-ad2a3c3cc4ef","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Janaya Neither, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112866","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janaya Neither appealed her conviction for assault in the second degree and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting social media posts without an adequate foundation, which she claimed resulted in prejudice. The State charged Appellant with assault and armed criminal action for slashing T.G. with a knife, while Appellant claimed self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the social media posts, as there was sufficient evidence of their authenticity. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there was an error in admission, Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice warranting reversal.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38593:2025-09-22","opinionId":"a59aeaf0-b1cf-568f-b51b-9355cab2447a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38593","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Sales, Jr., a prior and persistent felony drug offender, appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, possession, tampering with evidence, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, following a jury trial where he represented himself. Sales challenged the probable cause for a search warrant, the sufficiency of the evidence regarding chain of custody and drug paraphernalia, and claimed he was denied his right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in any of his claims, including that his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, and that the evidence was sufficient.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113612:2025-09-16","opinionId":"bc325d40-eaca-544c-afbc-6efb019b2a2a","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-michael-joe-butler-relator-v-honorable-joseph-ra-113612","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel. Michael Joe Butler, Relator, v. Honorable Joseph Rathert, Circuit Judge, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113612","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Relator Michael Butler filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent the Honorable Joseph Rathert from revoking his probation. The circuit court found Butler in violation of probation based on a Notice of Citation and a probation officer's testimony, despite the underlying criminal charge being dismissed and a lack of first-hand evidence or prior disclosure. The appellate court made its preliminary order of prohibition permanent, concluding that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Butler his rights to due process and confrontation during the probation revocation hearing.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224920","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-michael-joe-butler-relator-v-honorable-joseph-ra-113612","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112950:2025-09-16","opinionId":"da4f7870-a48e-5e83-8822-d4202456fdee","slug":"in-the-interest-of-cb-appellant-v-juvenile-officer-respondent-112950","caseName":"In the interest of:  C.B., Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112950","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"C.B. appealed the juvenile court's judgment dismissing juvenile proceedings and transferring him for adult criminal prosecution, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during the certification proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court clarified that the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington is the appropriate framework for analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims in juvenile certification proceedings, and found that C.B.'s counsel was not ineffective and C.B. was not prejudiced.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-cb-appellant-v-juvenile-officer-respondent-112950","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"}]},{"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"}]},{"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112942:2025-09-09","opinionId":"d38e2f22-ffac-52f9-a60c-8e67129984a0","slug":"christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","caseName":"Christopher L. Russell, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112942","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Russell appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and for not objecting to prejudicial body camera audio. The motion court denied his claims after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no error in its conclusions regarding trial counsel's reasonable strategy and lack of prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38761:2025-09-04","opinionId":"68bfeac9-49e1-507f-b0f4-5ac64ee7da65","slug":"thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","caseName":"THOMAS BENZEN, et al., Respondents\nvs.\nJEFFREY B. WHEELER, et al., Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38761","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"A group of neighbors, including the Benzens and Schniedermeyers (Plaintiffs) and the Wheelers (Defendants), sued each other over various property disputes. The Wheelers appealed the circuit court's judgment granting Plaintiffs an easement by implication across a portion of the Wheelers' property. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, as modified, denying all three of the Wheelers' points on appeal regarding pleading, sufficiency of evidence for reasonable necessity, and the adequacy of the easement's legal description. The modification corrected the judgment to reference the correct count number for the implied easement.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86611:2025-08-26","opinionId":"e7a9fc91-049c-56c6-83ff-369ae4045da4","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-maggie-p-ybarra-d86611","caseName":"State of Missouri \nvs.\nMaggie P Ybarra","caseNumber":"WD86611","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Maggie Ybarra appealed her convictions for multiple felonies, including murder, harassment, attempted child enticement, sexual misconduct, and tampering with evidence, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to sever her trial from a co-defendant. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found that Ybarra's argument on appeal was not preserved and, even under plain error review, she failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or prejudice, especially given the jury's ability to distinguish evidence as shown by its mixed verdict.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223753","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-maggie-p-ybarra-d86611","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38062:2025-08-20","opinionId":"466b9c03-6ac8-51f4-851f-20fe035f9185","slug":"martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","caseName":"MARTIN PRIEST, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38062","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Martin Priest appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, which sought to set aside his 1984 first-degree murder conviction based on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Priest argued his counsel failed to impeach key witnesses and exclude tainted identification evidence. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding its decision was not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113153:2025-08-19","opinionId":"15cee353-dbd4-5c11-bb56-bf8e8bf1829a","slug":"jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","caseName":"Jennifer Kubinak, Appellant, v. Board of Regents, Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113153","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jennifer Kubinak, a 64-year-old woman, appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southeast Missouri State University on her claims of age discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Kubinak alleged she was paid less than similarly situated male and younger employees and that the University retaliated against her after she filed a discrimination charge. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kubinak failed to present admissible evidence or properly support her denials and additional facts as required by Rule 74.04(c)(2) to create a genuine issue of material fact for any of her claims.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38558:2025-08-12","opinionId":"4f6011d5-154b-5901-b683-a5d1d78f1866","slug":"donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","caseName":"DONALD WAYNE McMANNIS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38558","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Donald McMannis appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), which was enhanced to a class B felony due to his habitual offender status. McMannis argued his sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law because the State's evidence was insufficient to prove his habitual offender status. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for habitual offender status is not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 proceeding, the claim was abandoned due to lack of evidence, and the *Nowicki* opinion on prior DWI convictions does not apply retroactively.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38494:2025-08-01","opinionId":"1ccd8ab1-7bb1-5390-8118-5fa3f426774b","slug":"julia-ann-richardson-plaintiff-appellant-v-arthur-hawes-md-and-ferrell-du-d38494","caseName":"JULIA ANN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nARTHUR HAWES, M.D. and FERRELL-DUNCAN CLINIC, INC., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38494","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Julia Ann Richardson sued Dr. Arthur Hawes and Ferrell-Duncan Clinic, Inc. for medical negligence related to cosmetic surgeries. A jury found in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Richardson contended the trial court erred by admitting certain demonstrative exhibits during the defendants' expert testimony, arguing they contained inadmissible hearsay and were not properly authenticated. The Southern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the admission of the exhibits and concluding that Richardson failed to preserve one argument and did not demonstrate prejudice for the other.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julia-ann-richardson-plaintiff-appellant-v-arthur-hawes-md-and-ferrell-du-d38494","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112815:2025-07-29","opinionId":"d6eba03d-dc6b-512c-85a3-0dc67460e698","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-narvel-s-harmon-appellant-112815","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Narvel S. Harmon, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112815","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Narvel Harmon appealed his conviction for first-degree harassment, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a \"trigger-like\" gesture he made during his preliminary hearing. He contended the gesture was speculative as a threat and more prejudicial than probative. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the gesture was admissible as a threat toward the victims, demonstrating consciousness of guilt, and thus the circuit court did not err.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-narvel-s-harmon-appellant-112815","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38618:2025-07-29","opinionId":"5b1d7f2f-0dcf-5bbb-9cac-edd9f4234e76","slug":"in-the-interest-of-djz-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-missour-d38618","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.Z., a minor child under seventeen years of age, \nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDRENS DIVISION, and, CRAWFORD COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioners-Respondent\nv.\nD.Z., Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38618","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Father D.Z. appealed the judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, D.J.Z., based on grounds of abuse and neglect, including a mental condition, severe physical abuse, and failure to protect the child. Father challenged the denial of his motion to reopen evidence, alleged failure to provide a social study, the findings of abuse and neglect, and the determination that termination was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on any of Father's seven points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","child-custody","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-djz-a-minor-child-under-seventeen-years-of-age-missour-d38618","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112879:2025-07-29","opinionId":"148728e1-60c7-5e01-a6bf-60d53e2077ef","slug":"justin-bonds-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112879","caseName":"Justin Bonds, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112879","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Justin Bonds appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a material witness, C.T., at his rape trial. Bonds claimed C.T.'s testimony would have provided a viable defense and led to his acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that counsel's decision not to call C.T. was reasonable trial strategy and Bonds failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/justin-bonds-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112879","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86606:2025-07-29","opinionId":"dc5cabf9-5466-578b-a0a6-f9899dde82ae","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-nancy-russell-d86606","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nNancy Russell","caseNumber":"WD86606","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Nancy Russell appealed her convictions and sentences for four counts of first-degree domestic assault and four counts of armed criminal action. Russell contended the circuit court plainly erred by allowing a treating physician to offer particularized testimony that improperly vouched for the victim's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the doctor's testimony, which focused on the developmental ability of a nine-year-old to fabricate a plausible mechanism for injuries, did not improperly vouch for the victim's credibility.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-nancy-russell-d86606","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"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38346:2025-07-25","opinionId":"b71d769b-1bb1-538a-bd25-46834126afe6","slug":"kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","caseName":"KENNETH M. SAUTER, JR., Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38346","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kenneth Sauter appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court determined that Sauter's amended motion was untimely due to appointed counsel's error in applying the wrong version of the rules, constituting abandonment. However, following recent precedent, the court proceeded to review the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding no clear error in its conclusion that sentencing counsel was not ineffective for failing to call two mitigation witnesses, as their testimony would not have added material information beyond the sentencing assessment report.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38390:2025-07-23","opinionId":"33054461-7ade-5356-8170-08ec2e789d44","slug":"ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","caseName":"A.O., Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nLESTER E. COX MEDICAL CENTERS, d/b/a COX MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, and COXHEALTH, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38390","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"A.O. sued Lester E. Cox Medical Centers and CoxHealth for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and failure to protect, after a certified medical assistant allegedly sexually assaulted her during an allergic reaction observation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding A.O. failed to present competent medical expert testimony to establish the standard of care for her medical negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that A.O.'s claims required medical expert testimony, which she failed to provide, and that summary judgment for one defendant properly disposed of claims against all.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112798:2025-07-22","opinionId":"2620fb1b-1a8a-56df-aa95-2ab453571746","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-devin-griffin-curry-appellant-112798","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Devin Griffin-Curry, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112798","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Devin Griffin-Curry appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, stemming from the fatal shooting of his neighbor. He argued violations of his speedy trial right, erroneous exclusion of diminished capacity testimony regarding ADHD, and improper acquittal-first closing arguments by the State. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no speedy trial violation due to a lack of demonstrated prejudice, no abuse of discretion in excluding the ADHD testimony as it did not negate the required mental state, and that the improper closing argument was not prejudicial given the proper jury instructions and strong evidence of guilt.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-devin-griffin-curry-appellant-112798","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112269:2025-07-15","opinionId":"785d9bb5-feef-564c-b39c-c4c4bed6779a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leroy-m-holloway-appellant-112269","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Leroy M. Holloway, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112269","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Leroy Holloway appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial. Holloway contended the State violated an order in limine during closing arguments by linking his firearm possession to an uncharged shooting incident. The appellate court found the State's argument improper but affirmed the conviction, concluding that the overwhelming evidence of Holloway's guilt overcame any prejudice from the improper argument.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leroy-m-holloway-appellant-112269","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87256:2025-07-15","opinionId":"ee1c603c-4d15-50ce-9647-51735b14eac2","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-robert-beck-d87256","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nRobert Beck","caseNumber":"WD87256","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Beck appealed his conviction and sentence for misdemeanor witness tampering, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish he had the purpose to influence a witness to withhold information. The appellate court found that a reasonable juror could infer Beck's purpose from his actions, including threatening the witness at the courthouse and following him to the sheriff's department to continue the threats. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222154","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-robert-beck-d87256","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38673:2025-07-09","opinionId":"f5539cb8-9e69-5eab-b0f4-74e0c80f1bd5","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-d38673","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nJAMES WILLIS PETERS, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38673","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"James Willis Peters was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and sentenced as a chronic offender due to prior intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs). On appeal, Peters challenged the sufficiency of evidence for a 2002 municipal conviction to qualify as an IRTO, arguing it did not establish \"driving\" as defined at the time of his 2021 offense. The Southern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the 2002 conviction was sufficient because the definition of \"driving\" at that time no longer included the \"actual physical control\" language, and it was reasonable to infer the municipal conviction was for actual driving.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-d38673","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87590:2025-07-08","opinionId":"2949c777-1970-59b1-85c5-b0f632140cbc","slug":"motors-insurance-corporation-v-autobot-towing-llc-d87590","caseName":"Motors Insurance Corporation\nvs.\nAutobot Towing, LLC","caseNumber":"WD87590","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Motors Insurance Corporation sued Autobot Towing, LLC for conversion after Autobot towed a truck owned by Insurer and later sold it for scrap to cover towing and storage fees. The circuit court found in favor of Insurer, awarding $35,015 in compensatory damages. On appeal, Autobot argued it complied with abandoned property statutes and that the damages were not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Autobot failed to comply with the statutory notice and disposal requirements, and that the damage award was supported by substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221960","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/motors-insurance-corporation-v-autobot-towing-llc-d87590","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113100:2025-07-08","opinionId":"f25eac20-31b4-5dad-8f1e-7e1799f460dd","slug":"sps-by-their-next-friend-ews-and-ews-individually-respondents-v-kae-appel-113100","caseName":"S.P.S., by their next friend, E.W.S., and E.W.S., individually, Respondents, vs. K.A.E., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113100","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"K.A.E. (Mother) appealed the trial court's judgment of paternity, custody, and child support, which adopted E.W.S.'s (Father's) parenting plan designating Father's home as the child's primary residence for educational purposes. Mother argued the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and lacked substantial evidence for certain best-interest factors, particularly after her recent relocation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, deferring to its custody determination and finding that the judgment was supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"child-custody","topicSlugs":["child-custody","family-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221977","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sps-by-their-next-friend-ews-and-ews-individually-respondents-v-kae-appel-113100","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"source":"tag","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112834:2025-07-01","opinionId":"3e05f68b-6c29-5054-8ea6-60d2db418df3","slug":"mtm-and-pm-et-al-respondents-v-st-louis-city-circuit-court-et-al-appellan-112834","caseName":"M.T.M. and P.M., et al., Respondents, v. St. Louis City Circuit Court, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112834","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"M.T.M. and P.M. petitioned the circuit court to expunge their misdemeanor convictions for assault and harassment under § 610.140, RSMo. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department opposed, arguing the expungement was inconsistent with public welfare and that the petitioners posed a threat to public safety. The circuit court granted the expungement, and the Department appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Department failed to rebut the statutory presumption for expungement and that the circuit court did not err in its handling of the Department's offer of proof regarding victim testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221814","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mtm-and-pm-et-al-respondents-v-st-louis-city-circuit-court-et-al-appellan-112834","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112532:2025-06-24","opinionId":"1ceb1c58-5682-5f5c-841d-576eadb355a4","slug":"mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","caseName":"Mark McCostlin, and Karen McCostlin, Appellants, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112532","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Karen McCostlin appealed the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of Monsanto Company in their strict liability and negligence action, alleging Mr. McCostlin's exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The McCostlins contended their expert testimony established a submissible case on causation, the trial court misinterpreted evidence, and erred in denying a motion to recall an expert and sustaining an objection during redirect. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the McCostlins' causation expert failed to demonstrate a causal connection, and the trial court did not err in its procedural and evidentiary rulings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86794:2025-06-24","opinionId":"161f4509-d9d8-5d53-89c9-b2ec119e3bf8","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-renee-m-collins-d86794","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nRenee M. Collins","caseNumber":"WD86794","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Renee M. Collins appealed her convictions for sexual trafficking, endangering the welfare, neglect, and rape of her biological daughter, the Victim. Collins argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to declare the Victim incompetent to testify and allowing her deposition to be published to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly found the Victim met the traditional criteria for witness competence, despite her cognitive deficits, and therefore did not abuse its discretion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-renee-m-collins-d86794","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38544:2025-06-23","opinionId":"cf2fcb24-e82a-5923-af29-d939d16e24c5","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-albert-jay-wright-appellant-d38544","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv\nALBERT JAY WRIGHT, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38544","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Albert Jay Wright was found guilty of attempted stealing after entering a victim's home, threatening her, and demanding money. On appeal, Wright argued there was insufficient evidence to prove his intent was to take money \"from the person of the victim\" because she was in her underwear and t-shirt, and he asked where her money was. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Wright took a substantial step towards taking money from the victim's person.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-albert-jay-wright-appellant-d38544","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87182:2025-06-17","opinionId":"057653d4-1062-56ca-b707-803f24be654c","slug":"felisha-despain-v-nathan-despain-and-brandi-judah-guardian-ad-litem-rose-d87182","caseName":"Felisha DeSpain\nvs. \nNathan DeSpain and Brandi Judah, Guardian ad litem; Rose C. Brisco","caseNumber":"WD87182","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Attorney Rose Briscoe appealed sanctions imposed by the circuit court in a dissolution of marriage case, stemming from her use of audio recordings made by the parties' son during sessions with the guardian ad litem (GAL) and a court-appointed therapist. The circuit court had found that Briscoe violated attorney-client privilege, work product protection, and therapist-patient privilege. The appellate court reversed the sanctions, holding that none of these privileges or protections applied to the communications at issue. The case was remanded for the circuit court to reconsider whether sanctions were warranted on other grounds, independent of privilege claims.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","evidence","child-custody","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221297","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/felisha-despain-v-nathan-despain-and-brandi-judah-guardian-ad-litem-rose-d87182","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87042:2025-06-17","opinionId":"5abb1d33-07db-562b-8bcf-42d8c0d2d1a9","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-rodriguez-m-harris-jr-d87042","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nRodriguez M. Harris, Jr.","caseNumber":"WD87042","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rodriguez M. Harris, Jr. appealed his convictions for second-degree assault, armed criminal action, and resisting arrest, following a bench trial. Harris contended the State failed to provide substantial evidence for the exact acts alleged in the information, specifically that he \"grabbed the knife\" and \"lunged toward\" an officer. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the challenged allegations were surplusage and not essential elements of the crime, and sufficient evidence supported the actual elements. The court also declined to review the State's unpreserved argument regarding concurrent sentences.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-rodriguez-m-harris-jr-d87042","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112885:2025-06-17","opinionId":"75063de3-e165-5e72-96d6-ff8d613d62f2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-branden-g-collins-appellant-112885","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Branden G. Collins, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112885","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Branden Collins appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine residue and drug paraphernalia, arguing the circuit court plainly erred by not sua sponte excluding his statements made during an alleged custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. It held that Collins failed to meet his burden to show he was not Mirandized, and without evidence in the record, there was no evident, obvious, and clear error to warrant plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221419","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-branden-g-collins-appellant-112885","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86929:2025-06-17","opinionId":"45a7f9f9-c5e1-5f55-a5aa-1a683dd622c6","slug":"sm-v-curtis-deierling-d86929","caseName":"S.M.\nvs. \nCurtis Deierling","caseNumber":"WD86929","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"S.M. filed a petition for an Adult Order of Protection against her former tenant, Curtis Deierling, alleging stalking. The circuit court granted the full order of protection, which Deierling appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of stalking and that the appeal was moot due to the order's expiration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the public interest exception to mootness applied and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of stalking under the Adult Abuse Act.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sm-v-curtis-deierling-d86929","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38491:2025-06-13","opinionId":"a8d20a6e-2d6c-5397-a1d9-781f14b5d85c","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-john-ainsworth-appellant-d38491","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv\nDAVID JOHN AINSWORTH, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38491","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"David John Ainsworth was convicted after a bench trial of driving without a valid license and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. On appeal, Ainsworth argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for driving without a license because the State failed to prove he was driving on a public road. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence and its reasonable inferences were sufficient to conclude Ainsworth had driven on a public road.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-john-ainsworth-appellant-d38491","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38483:2025-06-13","opinionId":"e767f541-b515-507b-876b-4e998be6ae6f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-vincent-estes-appellant-d38483","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nJOHN VINCENT ESTES, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38483","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"John Vincent Estes appealed his conviction for statutory rape, asserting the trial court erred by allowing propensity witness testimony and by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct under the rape shield statute. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the admission of the propensity evidence. However, it determined that the exclusion of evidence suggesting the victim's motive to fabricate, though unpreserved, constituted plain error affecting Estes's substantial right to a fair trial. Consequently, the court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial with instructions to admit the excluded evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-vincent-estes-appellant-d38483","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112614:2025-06-10","opinionId":"809bc6ed-c85e-5d56-b460-0f0a97d94863","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-daniel-riley-appellant-112614","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Daniel Riley, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112614","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"Daniel Riley appealed his convictions for felony second-degree assault, felony armed criminal action, and misdemeanor assault and driving without a valid license, stemming from a severe car crash. He argued the State failed to prove the requisite mental state for armed criminal action, that the trial court erred in denying a continuance after a late discovery disclosure, and that evidence of a post-crash sign change was improperly excluded. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for the armed criminal action charge and no abuse of discretion or plain error on the other points.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-daniel-riley-appellant-112614","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112621:2025-06-03","opinionId":"a123ea74-0c46-5025-9df4-e2720d7d3a0b","slug":"bryan-k-reid-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112621","caseName":"Bryan K. Reid, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112621","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bryan Reid appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. He claimed counsel failed to investigate jurisdictional and evidentiary issues, and misadvised him on sex-offender registration and probation release. The appellate court affirmed the denial of relief on the investigation claims and the probation advice claim, finding them waived or refuted by the record. However, the court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the claim that counsel misadvised him about the lifetime sex-offender registration requirement, as this claim was not refuted by the record.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221137","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bryan-k-reid-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112621","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112288:2025-06-03","opinionId":"b9d610ba-bf75-5c8d-9a7b-f84a7a2d2e1a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-d-brooks-appellant-112288","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Anthony D. Brooks, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112288","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony Brooks appealed his convictions for domestic assault, kidnapping, rape, and sodomy, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony on the cycle of domestic violence and trauma. Brooks contended that the expert's personal anecdote about memory loss from trauma constituted inadmissible particularized testimony that bolstered the victim's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the expert's testimony, including the personal example, remained generalized and did not specifically apply to the victim or comment on her veracity, thus not usurping the jury's function.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221136","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-d-brooks-appellant-112288","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112719:2025-06-03","opinionId":"144b575b-baf1-5471-ba93-df7c55fa3aa7","slug":"christopher-schmitz-appellant-v-director-of-revenue-respondent-112719","caseName":"Christopher Schmitz, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112719","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Christopher Schmitz appealed the suspension of his driver's license by the Director of Revenue, stemming from a driving while intoxicated arrest. He argued the trial court erred in admitting the police report and that, without it, there was insufficient evidence of probable cause for his arrest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that even if the police report was inadmissible, other evidence, specifically the bodycam video admitted without limitation, provided substantial evidence to support the probable cause finding for the DWI arrest.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","evidence","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222206","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-schmitz-appellant-v-director-of-revenue-respondent-112719","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"}]},{"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38750:2025-05-29","opinionId":"d4de29ed-fa65-5af9-afd2-5a57f281c2e6","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-denise-margaret-lafferty-respondent-d38750","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant\nvs.\nDENISE MARGARET LAFFERTY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38750","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Denise Margaret Lafferty moved to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop, arguing that a warrantless \"Terry search\" of her pockets was unconstitutional. The circuit court sustained her motion, leading to an interlocutory appeal by the State. The State contended the search was valid or, alternatively, that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that the officer's command to empty pockets exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry search and that the State failed to prove inevitable discovery.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-denise-margaret-lafferty-respondent-d38750","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112330:2025-05-27","opinionId":"907e0da8-7206-52d7-82c8-5aa6c7afb4a7","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-stephen-wiley-appellant-112330","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Stephen Wiley, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112330","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Stephen Wiley appealed his convictions for first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and third-degree domestic assault. He challenged the trial court's denial of his speedy trial motion and its admission of evidence regarding a domestic assault response team and an order of protection. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no speedy trial violation and no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, despite an abuse of discretion in admitting the order of protection evidence without proof of notice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-stephen-wiley-appellant-112330","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113075:2025-05-27","opinionId":"bd00de80-065e-5d20-bc2c-953963963918","slug":"jeremy-jarvis-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-113075","caseName":"Jeremy Jarvis, Appellant, v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113075","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeremy Jarvis appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his claim against the Second Injury Fund. Jarvis, an iron worker, sustained a primary work injury in 2015, which he argued, when combined with preexisting disabilities, rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The Commission denied benefits, finding that one of Jarvis's three preexisting disabilities did not meet the statutory fifty-week permanent partial disability threshold. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in its application of the law or in finding its decision supported by competent and substantial evidence, as a claimant cannot rely on a non-qualifying preexisting disability for Fund benefits.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220923","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeremy-jarvis-appellant-v-treasurer-of-the-state-of-missouri-custodian-of-113075","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112122:2025-05-27","opinionId":"106f4fd8-6df4-5bf9-b406-9aaa09daa003","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-j-cothran-appellant-112122","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre J. Cothran, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112122","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deandre Cothran appealed his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He argued the trial court erred by allowing him to proceed pro se, finding him competent without a hearing, failing to order a post-conviction mental evaluation, denying his speedy trial motion, and not declaring a mistrial for alleged Doyle violations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in any of the points raised.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-j-cothran-appellant-112122","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112566:2025-05-27","opinionId":"dac7c1ff-8e38-5909-af79-9f174a3a4238","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-e-calvin-appellant-112566","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard E. Calvin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112566","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard E. Calvin appealed his jury convictions for first-degree burglary and attempted third-degree kidnapping, arguing insufficient evidence to prove his intent to kidnap for the burglary charge. Calvin unlawfully entered a neighbor's home, insisting she accompany him to fight \"werewolves,\" and became violent when she refused. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that overwhelming circumstantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Calvin intended to kidnap the victim when he forcibly entered her home.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220919","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-e-calvin-appellant-112566","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112252:2025-05-27","opinionId":"cc681640-50ce-510a-86ad-b6d3a7894f1a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tyrone-williams-appellant-112252","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tyrone Williams, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112252","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tyrone Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action after shooting and killing Victim. On appeal, Williams raised four points, including claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness, improper admission of a slow-motion video, an improper acquittal-first argument by the State, and a speedy trial violation. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's rulings on these issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220916","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tyrone-williams-appellant-112252","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86710:2025-05-27","opinionId":"c4bdcf50-8171-5d70-abaa-78df7087d769","slug":"mark-c-brandolese-v-state-of-missouri-d86710","caseName":"Mark C. Brandolese\nvs. \nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD86710","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark Brandolese appealed the denial of his amended motion for post-conviction relief, following convictions for domestic assault and armed criminal action. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly address a statutorily disqualified venireperson and for failing to peremptorily strike her. Brandolese also claimed his appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the exclusion of an exculpatory statement. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding Brandolese failed to prove actual bias or prejudice from the venireperson's service, and that appellate counsel's performance was not deficient regarding the unpreserved evidentiary issue.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-c-brandolese-v-state-of-missouri-d86710","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112380:2025-05-27","opinionId":"b2d5ef63-2c1b-5875-a001-1b24a77d1a10","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tommie-l-mcdowell-appellant-112380","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tommie L. McDowell, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112380","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"A jury found Appellant Tommie McDowell guilty of two counts of child molestation in the first degree. On appeal, McDowell challenged the purported exclusion of his expert witness during trial, arguing it constituted plain error. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no evidence in the record that an expert witness was called or excluded, and thus no evident, obvious, and clear error to warrant plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220918","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tommie-l-mcdowell-appellant-112380","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112468:2025-05-20","opinionId":"2cd3f877-6aff-5818-8bc9-58adb1dec4c2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-todd-m-wilbert-appellant-112468","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Todd M. Wilbert, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112468","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Todd Wilbert appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and trespass. He argued the circuit court plainly erred by allowing the State to comment on potential punishments during closing argument and abused its discretion by admitting victim character evidence. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that even if errors occurred, the overwhelming evidence of Wilbert's guilt precluded a finding of prejudice necessary for plain error relief.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-todd-m-wilbert-appellant-112468","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112656:2025-05-20","opinionId":"88ae5e3a-eb82-5330-8822-3ed9ef1edfa2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-walter-dallas-appellant-112656","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Walter Dallas, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112656","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Walter Dallas appealed his convictions for stealing $25,000 or more, stealing a motor vehicle, and first-degree property damage, following a jury trial. He argued the trial court erred by allowing an FBI agent to testify about details of an ongoing investigation beyond what was necessary to explain subsequent police conduct. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting the testimony was not the only evidence on the disputed factual issue and the court had limited the testimony as requested. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there was error, Dallas was not prejudiced due to ample cumulative evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220755","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-walter-dallas-appellant-112656","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86697:2025-05-20","opinionId":"a6d944b0-8d34-59d6-9f12-bc626d100210","slug":"midwest-trust-co-as-conservator-for-kp-v-united-parcel-service-inc-d86697","caseName":"Midwest Trust Co. as Conservator for K.P.\nvs. \nUnited Parcel Service, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD86697","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Midwest Trust Co., as conservator for K.P., sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) for in utero injuries K.P. sustained in a car accident caused by a UPS driver. The jury awarded K.P. $65 million in compensatory damages on a vicarious liability negligence claim, and the circuit court added prejudgment interest. UPS appealed, challenging the admission of evidence regarding the driver's prior cocaine use and the award of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary ruling and no error in the prejudgment interest award.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","evidence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/midwest-trust-co-as-conservator-for-kp-v-united-parcel-service-inc-d86697","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86601:2025-05-13","opinionId":"bfc9eef2-ec6d-5514-8d2f-fc79804e70f2","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-johnathan-l-bradford-d86601","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nJohnathan L. Bradford","caseNumber":"WD86601","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"Johnathan L. Bradford appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, tampering, abandonment of a corpse, and assault after a jury trial. He challenged the trial court's overruling of his Batson challenge, the sufficiency of evidence for abandonment of a corpse, and the constitutionality of the abandonment of a corpse statute. The appellate court affirmed all convictions, finding no clear error in the Batson ruling, sufficient evidence to prove Bradford knew the victim was deceased, and that the constitutional challenge was waived because it was not raised at the earliest opportunity.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220433","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-johnathan-l-bradford-d86601","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"}]}]}