{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"jury-instructions","label":"Jury Instructions","description":null,"totalCases":319,"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":36},{"year":2019,"count":40},{"year":2020,"count":41},{"year":2021,"count":23},{"year":2022,"count":23},{"year":2023,"count":39},{"year":2024,"count":52},{"year":2025,"count":51},{"year":2026,"count":14}],"cases":[{"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":"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":"mo:sc101132:2026-01-13","opinionId":"2cc3eae6-13d6-5765-9da3-8c9144b3cbba","slug":"state-ex-rel-catherine-hanaway-relator-v-the-honorable-craig-hellmann-res-101132","caseName":"State ex rel. Catherine Hanaway, Relator, vs. The Honorable Craig Hellmann, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101132","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri sought a writ of prohibition after the circuit court dismissed a felony DWI charge against Richard James Johnson, who was charged as a persistent offender. The circuit court found the persistent offender statute, section 577.023.2, facially unconstitutional for violating Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by requiring a judge, not a jury, to find predicate facts for sentencing enhancement. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the statute is not facially unconstitutional because existing procedural rules, such as Rule 27.02(s) and MAI-CR 4th 405.01, provide a mechanism for a jury to make the necessary findings. Therefore, the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss the charge.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229862","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-catherine-hanaway-relator-v-the-honorable-craig-hellmann-res-101132","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: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:sc101071:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d2463849-d8a6-5968-94f1-7a1562f12608","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard Neil Burkett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101071","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Neil Burkett was convicted of first-degree assault after a jury trial. On appeal, Burkett contended the circuit court erred by not submitting a self-defense instruction and by not giving a curative instruction regarding the State's closing argument. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining to review Burkett's unpreserved claims for plain error because he caused or contributed to the alleged errors and his claims were ill-suited for plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","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":"mo:sc101104:2025-12-29","opinionId":"25d92d9f-5bb6-59eb-9ab7-b082f2ebb7a0","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Isis S. Jones, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101104","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Isis S. Jones was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon after a jury trial. On appeal, Jones argued the circuit court plainly erred by accepting a jury verdict based on an instruction that varied from the charged offense, leading to an improper sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review because Jones failed to establish that the alleged error was \"facially evident, obvious, and clear,\" as shooting \"into\" a vehicle necessarily subsumes shooting \"at\" it.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","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: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:ed113270:2025-12-23","opinionId":"b406b9d9-152b-50a7-a051-75ed7c87c014","slug":"karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","caseName":"Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113270","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Karla Allsberry, a former circuit clerk, sued Judge Patrick Flynn and his secretary Kathy Hall for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Circuit Court of Lincoln County (CCLC) for sex discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA. The trial court granted summary judgment on defamation, directed verdicts on the MHRA claims, and a jury verdict for Flynn on IIED. The appellate court affirmed all judgments, finding no evidence of actual malice for defamation, that the State of Missouri (not CCLC) was Allsberry's employer for MHRA purposes, and that the jury instruction on IIED's \"sole purpose\" element was a correct statement of law. It also found Allsberry's claims of trial error regarding attorney misconduct were not preserved.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229238","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","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":"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":"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: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":"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":"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:ed112801:2025-09-09","opinionId":"62dcceec-1be4-5b07-b3f5-231d09e949b7","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Ledra Craig, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112801","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ledra Craig appealed his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed criminal action, following a jury trial. Craig argued the trial court erred by not removing a juror who recognized a witness and potentially saw him in shackles, and by not sua sponte intervening during the prosecutor's closing argument. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in retaining the juror and no plain error in the prosecutor's remarks.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","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:sd38188:2025-08-29","opinionId":"d746e18d-82a5-5cfa-a664-ae559f5ed0fb","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. COOPER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38188","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Cooper appealed his conviction for armed criminal action, arguing that the trial court erred by submitting a jury instruction on armed criminal action with involuntary manslaughter as the underlying felony. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Cooper failed to preserve the instructional error for review by not making a specific objection at trial or in his motion for new trial. The court declined to exercise plain error review, and further noted that even if reviewed, the argument would fail on the merits due to controlling Supreme Court of Missouri precedent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-andrew-j-cooper-defendant-appell-d38188","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86932:2025-07-29","opinionId":"4049704e-2913-5b58-a496-28faec9390f1","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-michael-w-myers-d86932","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nMichael W. Myers","caseNumber":"WD86932","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael W. Myers appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action, challenging a jury instruction variance and a discrepancy between his oral and written sentences. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no plain error in the jury instruction regarding transferred intent, as Myers was on notice of this theory and failed to show prejudice. However, the court reversed and remanded for a nunc pro tunc amendment to correct the written judgment, which incorrectly stated that certain sentences were to run consecutively when the oral pronouncement was silent, meaning they should run concurrently.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222555","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-michael-w-myers-d86932","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":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":"moappsd:sd38252:2025-07-14","opinionId":"6128d365-ec63-571b-8f1f-3c5c98d559a7","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-genaro-foreman-jr-defendan-d38252","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nBOBBY GENARO FOREMAN, JR., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38252","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bobby Genaro Foreman, Jr. appealed his convictions for two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the trial court plainly erred by failing to include cross-references to self-defense and defense-of-others jury instructions in the verdict directors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It concluded that, despite the instructional error, Foreman failed to demonstrate that the omission resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, especially since the jury was generally instructed on the defenses and counsel argued them.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-bobby-genaro-foreman-jr-defendan-d38252","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112413:2025-07-08","opinionId":"b959acb6-796e-51c7-a9d8-32542f288d20","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-bolden-appellant-112413","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Christopher L. Bolden, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112413","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Bolden appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and other charges, arguing the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury on defense of others. Bolden claimed he shot the victim because the victim was choking his ex-girlfriend, but later recanted this story. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals disagreed, declining to conduct plain error review because Bolden recanted the only evidence supporting a defense-of-others instruction. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-bolden-appellant-112413","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:ed112516:2025-06-24","opinionId":"9f202d40-2880-5016-a658-045c49f863dc","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-brian-s-hensley-appellant-112516","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian S. Hensley, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112516","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Brian Hensley appealed his sentence for involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action, arguing the circuit court plainly erred by obtaining extrajudicial information from jurors before sentencing and by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine them. Hensley acknowledged the issue was unpreserved and requested plain error review. The Eastern District declined to conduct plain error review, finding no evident, obvious, and clear error or manifest injustice, and affirmed the circuit court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-brian-s-hensley-appellant-112516","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: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: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:ed112519:2025-05-06","opinionId":"9dd1496d-9631-5398-92a1-180d5389f4df","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffery-lumzy-appellant-112519","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jeffery Lumzy, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112519","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeffery Lumzy appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm, and stealing a motor vehicle. He challenged the admission of text messages and evidence of uncharged kidnapping attempts, and argued that a jury instruction for first-degree burglary improperly lowered the State's burden of proof. The Eastern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence and no plain error in the jury instruction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220336","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffery-lumzy-appellant-112519","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86858:2025-04-29","opinionId":"460d44bc-96b6-5c2a-9c0d-1ac928adec2b","slug":"reyna-hotel-corporation-et-al-v-lotus-hospitality-management-llc-et-al-d86858","caseName":"Reyna Hotel Corporation, et al. \nvs. \nLotus Hospitality Management, LLC, et al.","caseNumber":"WD86858","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Reyna Hotel Corporation and North Kansas City Hotel Corporation (Plaintiff Hotels) sued Lotus Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. (Defendants) for tortious interference with a business expectancy and conversion after Defendants, managing a Kansas City homeless housing program, refused to pay Plaintiff Hotels' invoices. A jury found for Plaintiff Hotels, and the trial court entered judgment. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the judgment on the tortious interference claim and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the Defendants' agency affirmative defense. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","jury-instructions","other","standard-of-review","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/reyna-hotel-corporation-et-al-v-lotus-hospitality-management-llc-et-al-d86858","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":18,"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:wd86881:2025-04-29","opinionId":"d408cfce-8ce8-572a-9121-084789477758","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-daniel-r-overstreet-d86881","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nDaniel R. Overstreet","caseNumber":"WD86881","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Daniel Overstreet appealed his convictions for multiple counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and attempted sodomy, arguing the circuit court plainly erred by giving shortened reminder recess instructions to the jury on three occasions. He claimed this error violated his rights to due process and a fair and impartial jury. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Overstreet failed to demonstrate manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice because his claim of prejudice was speculative and the jury had received the full instruction multiple times.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220036","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-daniel-r-overstreet-d86881","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:sd38318:2025-04-28","opinionId":"2d078e1c-d3f9-5433-826d-6bca96001bdc","slug":"brandy-b-shaddox-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38318","caseName":"BRANDY B. SHADDOX, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38318","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Brandy B. Shaddox appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following her convictions for first-degree murder and other offenses. She claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to pursue a diminished capacity defense and for errors related to jury instructions. The motion court denied her claims, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy and that no prejudice resulted from the instructional errors. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, concluding its findings were not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brandy-b-shaddox-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38318","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:ed112231:2025-04-22","opinionId":"c1ea0526-29ed-58ac-9f68-c62bf5893b50","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-korrie-d-black-jr-appellant-112231","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Korrie D. Black, Jr., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112231","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Korrie Black, Jr. appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte submitting a jury instruction on the castle doctrine. Black contended that the justified use of force under Section 563.031 RSMo should have been instructed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Black failed to present substantial evidence to warrant a sua sponte instruction on the castle doctrine.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-korrie-d-black-jr-appellant-112231","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:ed112499:2025-04-22","opinionId":"a3bb5803-0fba-5e1b-ac12-8531a5343f70","slug":"marcell-smith-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112499","caseName":"Marcell Smith, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112499","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Marcell Smith appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not presenting mitigating evidence and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the denial of a mistrial and a motion to suppress identification. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's performance was not deficient and Smith was not prejudiced. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that Smith failed to satisfy the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel on all three points.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marcell-smith-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112499","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:sc100790:2025-04-15","opinionId":"b333a858-e941-551b-8895-ad73591ae53e","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-100790","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. David Thompson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100790","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Thompson appealed his conviction for fourth-degree domestic assault and violating an order of protection, which arose from an incident where he struck his ex-boyfriend with a vehicle. Thompson claimed the circuit court erred by denying his right to counsel at a preliminary hearing, rejecting his proposed lesser-included offense instruction, and submitting a corrective instruction after the jury returned inconsistent verdicts. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that all of Thompson's claims lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-100790","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:ed112420:2025-04-15","opinionId":"587497b8-1ac4-5af0-aca0-dff2473cd601","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leonard-h-burst-appellant-112420","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Leonard H. Burst, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112420","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Leonard Burst appealed his jury convictions for unlawful use of a weapon and fourth-degree assault. He argued the trial court erred in admitting a video, overruling an objection to the State's closing argument regarding burden-shifting, and plainly erred by omitting language from a jury instruction on witness credibility. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error or manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leonard-h-burst-appellant-112420","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":"mo:sc100676:2025-04-01","opinionId":"2959b34b-f724-5df1-b2bd-bbb72a8817ee","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-tate-appellant-100676","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Anthony Tate, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100676","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony Tate appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree assault, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging plain error by the circuit court. Tate contended the court erred by not issuing a corrective instruction regarding the State's closing argument and by not striking portions of a witness's testimony as inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the assault convictions and no plain error in the unpreserved claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-tate-appellant-100676","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":"mo:sc100711:2025-03-18","opinionId":"d1bae935-f085-58bc-8660-0562c1e4adcd","slug":"melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-100711","caseName":"Melissa Moody, Respondent, vs. Dynamic Fitness Management, LTD., Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100711","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Melissa Moody sued Dynamic Fitness Management Ltd. for negligence after suffering a herniated disc during a weightlifting class. A jury found Dynamic 30% at fault and awarded Moody $300,000. Dynamic appealed the judgment, arguing the circuit court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and new trial, and in allowing adverse inference admissions. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, concluding Dynamic failed to preserve most of its claims of error by not filing a JNOV motion or making contemporaneous objections, and its argument regarding the verdict director lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-100711","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":"moappsd:sd38459:2025-03-17","opinionId":"f1508821-986a-532d-82cf-552ffa82a69f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-d38459","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nRICHARD NEIL BURKETT, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38459","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Neil Burkett appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court plainly erred by not giving a self-defense instruction and by failing to intervene during the State's closing arguments. The appellate court found that there was substantial evidence to inject the issue of self-defense into the case, making the self-defense instruction mandatory. The court concluded that the failure to provide this instruction resulted in manifest injustice. Consequently, the convictions were vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218473","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-d38459","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:sd38432:2025-02-26","opinionId":"193a55c7-efbe-5807-b81f-d7900083bc85","slug":"ronald-r-spradling-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d38432","caseName":"RONALD R. SPRADLING, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38432","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ronald R. Spradling appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following his convictions for kidnapping, armed criminal action, and other offenses. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a self-defense instruction with forcible felony language and for failing to object to the State's improper questioning regarding witness credibility. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding no evidentiary support for the requested self-defense instruction and concluding that Spradling failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's failure to object to the credibility questions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-r-spradling-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d38432","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:sd38378:2025-02-25","opinionId":"0fe05b1f-6bda-5162-845f-550d907c47ac","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kyle-a-byington-defendant-appell-d38378","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKYLE A. BYINGTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38378","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kyle Byington was convicted of first-degree murder and abandonment of a corpse following a jury trial. On appeal, Byington argued the trial court erred by denying his request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, declining plain error review. It held that voluntary manslaughter is not a nested lesser included offense of first- or second-degree murder, and the jury's conviction of the greater offense (first-degree murder) over the lesser (second-degree murder) demonstrated no prejudice from the omitted instruction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217814","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kyle-a-byington-defendant-appell-d38378","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38099:2025-02-24","opinionId":"7fec4c7c-feaa-5127-a730-fab8be5061a4","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lance-lechner-defendant-appellan-d38099","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nLANCE LECHNER, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38099","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lance Lechner appealed his conviction for first-degree child molestation, raising seven points of error. He challenged the trial court's decision to allow the State to amend the felony information on the day of trial and to deny his motion for continuance. Lechner also argued the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial or striking certain venirepersons due to potential bias from his prior convictions. Additionally, he claimed instructional error regarding the aggravated sexual offense element and insufficient evidence for that element. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of Lechner's claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217774","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-lance-lechner-defendant-appellan-d38099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100582:2025-02-11","opinionId":"8c1f17b0-fa8a-594c-b30a-3c41ba14dd20","slug":"carrie-s-schultz-and-robert-c-schultz-sr-surviving-parents-of-robert-c-sc-100582","caseName":"Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr., surviving parents of Robert C. Schultz, Jr., deceased, Respondents, vs. Great Plains Trucking, Inc. and Lennis H. Beck, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100582","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr., parents of Robert C. Schultz, Jr., brought a wrongful death action against Great Plains Trucking, Inc. and Lennis H. Beck after their son died in a collision with Beck's truck. A jury awarded the plaintiffs compensatory and aggravating circumstances damages. On appeal, defendants challenged the exclusion of expert testimony, the participation of separate counsel, the submission of a jury instruction on careful lookout, and the sufficiency of evidence for aggravating circumstances damages. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding that defendants either failed to preserve their claims of error or that their preserved claims lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carrie-s-schultz-and-robert-c-schultz-sr-surviving-parents-of-robert-c-sc-100582","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86686:2025-01-28","opinionId":"9948e417-baac-57b9-b2d9-84a53c2ea691","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jeffery-lynn-nichols-d86686","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJeffery Lynn Nichols","caseNumber":"WD86686","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeffery Nichols was convicted of driving while intoxicated and driving with a revoked license. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by not granting a new trial due to juror nondisclosure, by allowing evidence of prior bad acts, and by finding insufficient evidence for the driving while revoked charge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no plain error in the juror's unintentional nondisclosure or the brief reference to booking photos, and concluding there was sufficient evidence to infer criminal negligence regarding the revoked license.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216936","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jeffery-lynn-nichols-d86686","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:ed112272:2024-12-10","opinionId":"e84df2dc-4862-538e-8c71-663dad7d5664","slug":"douglas-overfield-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-112272","caseName":"Douglas Overfield, Respondent, v. BNSF Railway Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112272","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Douglas Overfield, a locomotive engineer, sued BNSF Railway Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained when his reflective vest snagged on a door handle. A jury awarded Overfield $2.75 million. BNSF appealed, arguing the verdict director was improper due to disjunctive bases lacking substantial evidence and constituting a roving commission, and that the trial court erred in refusing a withdrawal instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no instructional error as the verdict director was supported by substantial evidence and was not a roving commission, and the withdrawal instruction was properly refused.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-overfield-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-112272","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":"moappsd:sd38438:2024-11-27","opinionId":"01708664-68e2-5927-b274-73d6bbb79f7d","slug":"terry-d-morrison-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38438","caseName":"TERRY D. MORRISON, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38438","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Terry D. Morrison appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Morrison claimed his counsel was ineffective for offering lesser-included offense instructions (second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter) when the defense strategy was an \"all or nothing\" approach. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that offering lesser-included instructions was a reasonable trial strategy and Morrison failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-d-morrison-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-responde-d38438","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:ed111688:2024-11-26","opinionId":"c541ed09-8420-524f-b1fb-f5425e073e83","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-robert-brefford-appellant-111688","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent vs. Robert Brefford, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111688","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert Brefford appealed his convictions for first-degree assault, attempted first-degree assault, and armed criminal action. He challenged the self-defense jury instructions, arguing the burglary language was unsupported by evidence and that \"unlawfully entering/remaining\" should have been defined. He also contended the trial court erred by not striking a victim's testimony. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the burglary instruction, the definitions were not mandatory, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling the witness.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-robert-brefford-appellant-111688","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:ed112235:2024-11-19","opinionId":"c438bccd-8f6d-5725-a84e-2f278445b2cf","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-michael-p-oshia-appellant-112235","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael P. Oshia, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112235","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Oshia appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and armed criminal action, arguing the State failed to prove deliberation, the trial court erred by not instructing on voluntary manslaughter, and it improperly admitted testimony about his hunting experience. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found sufficient evidence for deliberation, concluded that Oshia did not inject the issue of sudden passion for a manslaughter instruction, and determined the hunting testimony was relevant and not unduly prejudicial.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214639","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-michael-p-oshia-appellant-112235","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:ed111892:2024-10-29","opinionId":"3db6ae28-3b38-534b-893e-0a7a5c4f26b2","slug":"choeye-young-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111892","caseName":"Choeye Young, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111892","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Cheoye Young appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief from a first-degree robbery conviction. Young claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an eyewitness identification expert and for not requesting a lesser-included offense instruction for stealing. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's actions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that counsel was not ineffective as her strategy was reasonable and the expert testimony would have been cumulative or futile.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/choeye-young-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111892","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:ed111340:2024-10-01","opinionId":"1ba54e57-263e-5b64-b41a-91e7b6303ab3","slug":"jon-yust-et-al-appellant-v-fasterhouse-et-al-respondent-111340","caseName":"Jon Yust, et al., Appellant, v. Fasterhouse, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111340","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Yusts and Investors Title Company appealed the trial court's orders granting a new trial on its own motion and subsequently granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for FasterHouse LLC and Rebecca Moran. The appellate court reversed the JNOV, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction after the notice of appeal was filed. It also reversed the new trial order because the trial court failed to specify the grounds for granting it, as required by Rule 78.03, and the presumption of error under Rule 84.05(c) was unrebutted. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and the Yusts were awarded attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","contracts","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jon-yust-et-al-appellant-v-fasterhouse-et-al-respondent-111340","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":"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":"moappd:ed111877:2024-09-17","opinionId":"58f4b4df-fe86-5fde-a2f8-96580ab8a377","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deion-anthony-whalen-appellant-111877","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deion Anthony Whalen, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111877","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Deion Whalen appealed his convictions for first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. He challenged the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial after gunfire struck the courthouse, the denial of his Batson challenge, an alleged misstatement of law during closing argument, and the admission of detective testimony on witness credibility. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no plain error in the first two points and no abuse of discretion or error in the latter two.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deion-anthony-whalen-appellant-111877","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:wd85931:2024-09-17","opinionId":"576cffc0-3fc4-58a5-9bd3-b5df27aa7515","slug":"jose-lopez-v-cedar-fair-lp-d85931","caseName":"Jose Lopez\nvs.\nCedar Fair, L.P.","caseNumber":"WD85931","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-09-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jose Lopez, who is blind, sued Cedar Fair, L.P., alleging disability discrimination in public accommodation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) related to incidents at an amusement park's waterslide and bumper cars. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Cedar Fair after a jury trial, and Lopez appealed, raising eleven points of error concerning evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, closing arguments, and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error or prejudice in the challenged rulings, and declining to review unpreserved instructional errors.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211479","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jose-lopez-v-cedar-fair-lp-d85931","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":24,"source":"tag","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":"moappsd:sd37712:2024-09-16","opinionId":"6e1a0faf-9aed-50e7-b634-9e0e1f6cac3f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-h-mckeown-appellant-d37712","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nELIZABETH H. MCKEOWN, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37712","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Elizabeth H. McKeown was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. On appeal, McKeown raised three unpreserved claims of error concerning the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on notetaking, the omission of a cross-reference in the verdict director, and the sentencing court's alleged mistaken belief regarding discretion. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that while some errors occurred, McKeown failed to demonstrate manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice under plain error review, and her sentencing claim was waived.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-h-mckeown-appellant-d37712","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:ed111738:2024-09-03","opinionId":"984f6cf4-fef2-5c21-b598-b09db26474b0","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-111738","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Thompson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111738","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Thompson appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the fourth degree and violation of an order of protection. He argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for lack of counsel at his preliminary hearing, rejecting his proposed lesser-included jury instruction, and giving a curative instruction after inconsistent verdicts, which he claimed violated double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no prejudice from the lack of counsel, no manifest injustice regarding the jury instruction, and no double jeopardy violation because the inconsistent verdicts were not accepted before the jury was discharged.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-111738","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:ed112004:2024-09-03","opinionId":"6cebc6ef-c357-5a50-8a40-972a976f463c","slug":"stacey-moore-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112004","caseName":"Stacey Moore, Appellant, v. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112004","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stacey Moore sued Monsanto Company, alleging that his exposure to Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. After a jury returned a verdict for Monsanto, Moore appealed, asserting the circuit court erred by excluding his expert witness, overruling his motion for a new trial based on Monsanto's opening statement, and failing to strike a venireperson for cause. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stacey-moore-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112004","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":"moappsd:sd38138:2024-08-13","opinionId":"e247f6be-d6a4-5c3a-9a4b-60c6c335484f","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-b-shultz-defendant-a-d38138","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCHRISTOPHER B. SHULTZ, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38138","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher B. Shultz appealed his convictions for harassment, stalking, and tampering with a victim, arguing insufficient evidence for tampering and requesting plain-error review for jury instruction and preliminary hearing issues. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the judgment. The court found sufficient evidence supported the tampering conviction and declined plain-error review for the remaining points, concluding Shultz failed to demonstrate manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-christopher-b-shultz-defendant-a-d38138","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111567:2024-08-13","opinionId":"9a6715d9-005a-5bf2-ac3a-a58353633f8b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-calvin-pittman-appellant-111567","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Calvin Pittman, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111567","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"Calvin Pittman appealed his convictions for voluntary manslaughter, armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the State made impermissible burden-shifting comments during closing arguments. The circuit court overruled his objections. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the prosecutor's comments constituted permissible commentary on witness credibility and did not shift the burden of proof. The court further found that even if the comments were improper, they did not have a decisive effect on the jury, which was properly instructed on the State's burden of proof and witness credibility.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210296","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-calvin-pittman-appellant-111567","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:sd38096:2024-08-06","opinionId":"cd13fd54-f502-531f-970f-653fd62f0a96","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-a-creviston-appellant-d38096","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nCHRISTOPHER A. CREVISTON, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38096","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher A. Creviston appealed his convictions for statutory sodomy in the first degree and child molestation in the third degree following a jury trial. He challenged the trial court's failure to intervene during the State's closing argument and voir dire, and an allegedly erroneous jury instruction regarding unanimity in a multiple acts case. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, denying all three points relied on, primarily finding the claims either waived or failing to demonstrate plain error or manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-a-creviston-appellant-d38096","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:wd86033:2024-07-30","opinionId":"cc1ab932-88cf-5daf-90a1-ac1acf41e0cb","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-dylan-jacob-garoutte-iii-d86033","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nDylan Jacob Garoutte III","caseNumber":"WD86033","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-07-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dylan Jacob Garoutte III appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court plainly erred by omitting the \"antique firearm\" exception from the verdict director. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. It held that the \"antique firearm\" exception is not an essential element of the offense but rather a defense, and Garoutte failed to inject any evidence of it at trial, thus the verdict director was not erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-dylan-jacob-garoutte-iii-d86033","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:ed111894:2024-07-23","opinionId":"017353b1-2545-560a-a274-a89231aeb1ec","slug":"darian-cummings-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111894","caseName":"Darian Cummings, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111894","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Darian Cummings appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Cummings argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting jury instructions for lesser included offenses of second-degree robbery and stealing during his original robbery trial. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Cummings failed to overcome the presumption that counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy, specifically an \"all or nothing\" defense. The court also noted Movant's brief failed to fully comply with Rule 84.04(d) but reviewed it ex gratia.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/darian-cummings-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111894","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:sd37818:2024-07-22","opinionId":"6b50a70d-00e5-58df-81d9-b41705a7471d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kevin-irby-defendant-appellant-d37818","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKEVIN IRBY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37818","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Defendant Kevin Irby appealed his conviction for first-degree burglary, arguing the trial court erred by making a handwritten amendment to a jury instruction that may have misdirected the jury. The amendment added the word \"unlawfully\" to Instruction No. 5, an element of the offense. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the amendment was not plain error because the instruction, as amended, contained all necessary elements, and the jury was repeatedly advised on the \"unlawfully\" element by both the court and counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kevin-irby-defendant-appellant-d37818","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111901:2024-07-16","opinionId":"b4b12043-a0d1-5f7e-bacd-0f594351fd1a","slug":"andrew-wilkinson-respondent-v-stanley-fastening-systems-lp-appellant-111901","caseName":"Andrew Wilkinson, Respondent, vs. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111901","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Andrew Wilkinson sued Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. for products liability after a pneumatic stapler manufactured by Stanley fired and struck him in the eye, leading to its surgical removal. The trial court entered judgment following a jury verdict for Wilkinson, awarding $11 million in noneconomic damages. Stanley appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial after Wilkinson's counsel repeatedly referred to Stanley as a \"billion-dollar company\" in violation of an order in limine. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court abused its discretion because the improper statements were not cured and prejudiced the outcome, as evidenced by the large verdict.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrew-wilkinson-respondent-v-stanley-fastening-systems-lp-appellant-111901","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:ed111696:2024-07-02","opinionId":"87258293-353e-5123-b4bd-9dd8013ab890","slug":"ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-111696","caseName":"Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111696","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ethel Barry Masters brought a replevin action against Jacob Dawson for five vehicles acquired during her relationship with Dawson's deceased father. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Masters on possession of the vehicles and later entered a final judgment awarding damages after canceling Dawson's jury trial for nonappearance at a pretrial conference. The appellate court affirmed the partial summary judgment, finding the vehicles passed to Masters outside of probate, but reversed the final judgment as to damages, holding that canceling a jury trial as a sanction for nonappearance at a pretrial conference violated Dawson's constitutional right to a jury trial. The case was remanded for a jury trial on damages.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","jury-instructions","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209435","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-111696","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110825:2024-06-18","opinionId":"7d543b59-e808-52ab-ac3f-9b4ea62ea64f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-marcus-h-ausler-appellant-110825","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marcus H. Ausler, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110825","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Marcus H. Ausler appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon, raising three points of error. He argued the trial court erred by not including an age element in the first-degree murder jury instruction, failing to dismiss the indictment for a speedy trial violation, and sentencing him to life without parole without proof of his age. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury instruction was accurate, his speedy trial rights were not violated, and his sentencing claim did not establish grounds for plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209056","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-marcus-h-ausler-appellant-110825","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100292:2024-06-18","opinionId":"5448c2d2-0a6f-52a1-8cb7-395a881f143d","slug":"shawn-h-flaherty-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100292","caseName":"Shawn H. Flaherty, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100292","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-06-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Shawn Flaherty was convicted of second-degree domestic assault and armed criminal action, which were affirmed on direct appeal. He then sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a lesser-included instruction for fourth-degree domestic assault. The motion court found counsel's performance deficient but no prejudice, denying relief. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding its findings were not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shawn-h-flaherty-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100292","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:ed111709:2024-06-11","opinionId":"3f35aa53-2e55-5d13-9425-4c9a6faef196","slug":"debbie-pyzyk-plaintiffrespondent-v-gateway-psychiatric-group-llc-gordon-r-111709","caseName":"Debbie Pyzyk, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gateway Psychiatric Group, LLC & Gordon Robinson, M.D., Defendants/Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111709","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Debbie Pyzyk sued Gateway Psychiatric Group and Dr. Gordon Robinson for wrongful death following her daughter K.P.'s death, alleging medical malpractice. The jury found in favor of Pyzyk, awarding compensatory damages. On appeal, Appellants challenged a verdict directing instruction, the admission of expert testimony, the admission of K.P.'s death certificate, and the submission of aggravating circumstances damages. The Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying all points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","wrongful-death","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208895","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/debbie-pyzyk-plaintiffrespondent-v-gateway-psychiatric-group-llc-gordon-r-111709","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37796:2024-06-07","opinionId":"99ebbbdb-353c-5ecf-be72-51826a2eb670","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-edward-dennis-rodgers-defendant-d37796","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nEDWARD DENNIS RODGERS, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37796","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"Edward Dennis Rodgers appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, raising four points of alleged plain error. He claimed the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense or justification by necessity, by excluding an inmate's testimony, and by allowing questioning about his post-arrest silence. The Southern District of Missouri declined to review any of Rodgers's points for plain error, finding he failed to facially establish substantial grounds for believing manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208882","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-edward-dennis-rodgers-defendant-d37796","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37732:2024-05-09","opinionId":"6a4b0b7a-7e07-51cb-bda8-688845f3b73d","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-c-rost-defendant-appellan-d37732","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nROBERT C. ROST, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37732","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert C. Rost appealed his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, armed criminal action, assault, and tampering. He challenged the denial of a mistrial due to juror misconduct, the refusal to sever the tampering charge, and the sufficiency of evidence for tampering. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on these three points, finding no abuse of discretion or insufficient evidence. However, the court found a clerical error in the written judgment regarding the tampering conviction and remanded the case for a nunc pro tunc correction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-robert-c-rost-defendant-appellan-d37732","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111281:2024-05-07","opinionId":"72a8aeb4-c63e-5f6f-ab78-5006e938c0ba","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-rodrick-fowler-appellant-111281","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Rodrick Fowler, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111281","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-07","year":2024,"display_summary":"Rodrick Fowler appealed his convictions for first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer, felony resisting arrest, and armed criminal action following a jury trial. He argued the trial court erred by refusing a requested fourth-degree assault instruction and that there was insufficient evidence for the felony resisting arrest conviction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the proposed instruction impermissibly deviated from the charged conduct and that defense counsel's admission of guilt waived the sufficiency-of-evidence claim for resisting arrest.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-rodrick-fowler-appellant-111281","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":"mo:sc100303:2024-04-30","opinionId":"2e7dd3b3-ed57-5b42-9784-813fd1f23e09","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tiffany-mills-appellant-100303","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tiffany Mills, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100303","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tiffany Mills appealed her conviction for third-degree assault and armed criminal action, raising three points of error. She argued the circuit court erred by not holding a jury-tried punishment stage, by excluding certain evidence, and by failing to appoint counsel at her initial appearance. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no plain error in the sentencing waiver or the lack of counsel at the initial appearance/bail hearing, and no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of evidence.","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=207698","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tiffany-mills-appellant-100303","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:sc100188:2024-04-30","opinionId":"0745b686-0940-5656-a61d-029a2871650b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-troy-jackson-bey-appellant-100188","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Troy Jackson-Bey, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100188","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Troy Jackson-Bey appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree assault. He challenged the admission of surveillance video, the submission of the first-degree assault verdict director, the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions, and argued that age is an element of first-degree murder. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the video's admission or the verdict director's submission, sufficient evidence for the convictions, and clarified that age is not an element of first-degree murder but rather a mitigating factor related to punishment.","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=207693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-troy-jackson-bey-appellant-100188","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:ed111691:2024-04-23","opinionId":"67b321e5-ebc2-5abd-8035-8cace89751c2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-pedro-torres-jasso-appellant-111691","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Pedro Torres Jasso, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111691","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Pedro Torres Jasso appealed his conviction for second-degree rape, raising four points of error concerning his waiver of jury sentencing, victim testimony, expert testimony, and the State's closing argument. The appellate court found that none of Jasso's points were preserved for review and declined to review any of them for plain error. Consequently, Jasso's conviction and seven-year sentence were affirmed.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207501","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-pedro-torres-jasso-appellant-111691","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:ed111905:2024-04-16","opinionId":"47eb59f4-8b91-5e13-a888-4aa6790f5f5a","slug":"candace-love-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-casey-redmond-pl-111905","caseName":"Candace Love, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Casey Redmond, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Osage Marine Services, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111905","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Candace Love, as personal representative of her deceased son Casey Redmond's estate, sued Osage Marine Services, Inc. under the Jones Act for Redmond's death while working on a tugboat. Osage Marine admitted liability, and a jury awarded Love $15 million in damages. On appeal, Osage Marine challenged the submissibility of damages for conscious pain and suffering and loss of support, the denial of remittitur, the admission of certain evidence, a jury instruction, and the entry of judgment despite a federal injunction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the damages claims and denying the remaining points on procedural grounds.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","civil-procedure","personal-injury","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208213","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/candace-love-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-casey-redmond-pl-111905","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111280:2024-04-16","opinionId":"f6cf7340-d1ee-5376-98e5-9a5e0176c5d4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dawona-cook-appellant-111280","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dawona Cook, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111280","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellant Dawona Cook appealed her convictions for third-degree domestic assault, second-degree kidnapping, and armed criminal action, following a jury trial. Cook argued the circuit court plainly erred by initially overruling her objection to the State's statement to the venire panel and failing to give a proper curative instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Cook waived plain error review by affirmatively agreeing with the circuit court's curative instruction and failing to renew her objection.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207297","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dawona-cook-appellant-111280","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:sd38135:2024-04-01","opinionId":"b2351051-de13-5cd9-9f62-ca9f413e6f7a","slug":"stephen-brady-plaintiff-appellant-v-city-of-springfield-missouri-defendan-d38135","caseName":"STEPHEN BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nCITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38135","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stephen Brady sued the City of Springfield for premises liability after an automated gate at a city park closed on him, causing injuries. Following a jury trial, the jury assessed zero percent fault to both Brady and the City, and judgment was entered for the City. Brady appealed, alleging five points of instructional error related to a comparative fault jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that any alleged instructional error was not prejudicial because the jury assessed zero percent fault to the City.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephen-brady-plaintiff-appellant-v-city-of-springfield-missouri-defendan-d38135","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":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111241:2024-03-26","opinionId":"e7b9fd2b-5ee1-5514-8a68-bdf58e699beb","slug":"carrie-s-schultz-and-robert-c-schultz-sr-surviving-parents-of-robert-c-sc-111241","caseName":"Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr., surviving parents of Robert C. Schultz, Jr., deceased, Respondents, vs. Great Plains Trucking, Inc. and Lennis H. Beck, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111241","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr., parents of the deceased Robert C. Schultz, Jr., brought a wrongful death action against Great Plains Trucking, Inc. and its driver, Lennis H. Beck, following a fatal vehicular crash. After a jury trial awarded the plaintiffs compensatory and aggravating circumstances damages, the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the exclusion of expert testimony, the allowance of separate counsel, the jury instructions, or the submission of aggravating circumstances damages.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","auto-accident","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carrie-s-schultz-and-robert-c-schultz-sr-surviving-parents-of-robert-c-sc-111241","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":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111089:2024-03-19","opinionId":"19eabac8-766b-5f59-be7d-e3cd013dd1a8","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-d-cummings-appellant-111089","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James D. Cummings, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111089","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"James D. Cummings appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, as well as his sentence. He argued the trial court erred by refusing to make findings of fact and law regarding his lawful possession of property during an eviction and by not submitting a relevant statute to the jury. The appellate court denied these points, finding the trial court properly refused to comment on evidence or instruct the jury outside of approved instructions, and that Cummings waived instructional error. However, the court granted Cummings's third point, reversing and remanding for resentencing due to a material discrepancy between the oral and written sentences.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-d-cummings-appellant-111089","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:ed111156:2024-03-12","opinionId":"80557ea7-5c4e-5b26-80da-f228d5c8b759","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-michael-bryant-appellant-111156","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Bryant, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111156","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Bryant appealed his conviction for first-degree sodomy, first-degree kidnapping, third-degree assault, and armed criminal action. Bryant argued the circuit court erred by limiting cross-examination of a victim regarding prior inconsistent statements and by allowing the State to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding Bryant failed to preserve his first claim with a sufficient offer of proof and that the State did not misstate the law regarding reasonable doubt during voir dire.","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=206337","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-michael-bryant-appellant-111156","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:ed111336:2024-03-12","opinionId":"6dbe699f-e306-52ad-8513-357a32ec164a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-martin-redmond-appellant-111336","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Martin Redmond, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111336","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellant Martin Redmond appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and armed criminal action, following a jury trial and concurrent life sentences. He argued the evidence was insufficient to prove deliberation, that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an uncharged crime, that a mistrial should have been granted due to his courtroom outburst, and that a voluntary manslaughter instruction should have been submitted to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for deliberation and no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, denial of mistrial, or jury instruction decisions.","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=206339","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-martin-redmond-appellant-111336","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:ed110634:2024-03-12","opinionId":"1f54f6f9-56a4-5807-ab42-6fade75b22f8","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-ohara-appellant-110634","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Timothy O'Hara, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110634","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Timothy O'Hara was convicted of fourth-degree assault, second-degree burglary, and unlawful use of a weapon after breaking into an elderly couple's home, threatening them with a knife, and claiming to be rescuing an imaginary kidnapping victim while under the influence of methamphetamine. On appeal, O'Hara challenged the trial court's refusal to give an emergency measures jury instruction and the sufficiency of evidence for his second-degree burglary conviction. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no error in the trial court's rulings.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-ohara-appellant-110634","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:ed110837:2024-03-12","opinionId":"1ad470f7-d514-5957-9ea7-f67a414570d1","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-r-vitale-appellant-110837","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. John R. Vitale, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110837","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Vitale was convicted of three counts of statutory rape and three counts of statutory sodomy. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in responding to a jury note requesting his prior convictions outside the presence of counsel, and plainly erred by failing to ensure unanimous verdict instructions. The Eastern District affirmed the judgment, finding no prejudice from the jury communication and declining plain error review for the jury instructions due to invited error.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206336","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-r-vitale-appellant-110837","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:ed111322:2024-02-20","opinionId":"335fbc98-a32f-50c6-933f-75590329042b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-prinshun-mcclain-appellant-111322","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Prinshun McClain, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111322","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Prinshun McClain was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and armed criminal action after shooting a victim during an attempted robbery. On appeal, McClain argued the State presented insufficient evidence of his requisite mental state and that the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the jury to infer McClain's knowing or purposeful mental state and concluded the trial court was not obligated to instruct on a lesser-included offense without a request.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205676","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-prinshun-mcclain-appellant-111322","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:sd37611:2024-02-01","opinionId":"7bb6f699-ad03-5131-9b8f-c8dec40f35ee","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-napoleon-emanuel-defendant-appel-d37611","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nNAPOLEON EMANUEL, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37611","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Napoleon Emanuel was convicted of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance in a protected location following a jury trial. On appeal, he argued the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous, a mandatory instruction. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the complete omission of the unanimity instruction, which was not otherwise conveyed, constituted plain error affecting the jury's verdict and resulting in manifest injustice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205237","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-napoleon-emanuel-defendant-appel-d37611","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37808:2024-01-16","opinionId":"35239bc6-291f-527a-981c-1b68594e0ca6","slug":"danielle-rollins-eads-appellant-v-taylor-automotive-group-llc-dba-taylor-d37808","caseName":"DANIELLE (ROLLINS) EADS, Appellant\nvs.\nTAYLOR AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, D/B/A TAYLOR CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM and TIMOTHY J. TAYLOR, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37808","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Danielle Eads appealed a jury verdict in favor of Taylor Automotive Group on her claims of breach of contract, fraud, and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations. Eads raised three points on appeal concerning an edited jury instruction, the exclusion of an investigative report, and the refusal to publish an exhibit to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Eads failed to preserve her instructional error claim, did not properly preserve the exclusion of the investigative report for review, and abandoned her third point on appeal by failing to cite relevant legal authority.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danielle-rollins-eads-appellant-v-taylor-automotive-group-llc-dba-taylor-d37808","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":36,"source":"tag","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:sd37537:2023-12-06","opinionId":"59ba6b82-f8a9-5375-843c-e2f6c9be779d","slug":"jeffrey-d-jendro-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d37537","caseName":"JEFFREY D. JENDRO, Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37537","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Jendro appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief after being convicted of statutory rape and sodomy. The motion court found Jendro's first counsel abandoned him and allowed an untimely second amended motion, which the appellate court determined was erroneous. Despite the procedural errors, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Jendro's timely claims (Points I, II, and III) on their merits to avoid duplicative proceedings. The court dismissed Jendro's untimely claims (Points IV and V) for lack of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeffrey-d-jendro-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d37537","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:ed110862:2023-11-28","opinionId":"eeed7627-41e6-5af3-b476-2c5536d68b2a","slug":"jamel-yates-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-110862","caseName":"Jamel Yates, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110862","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jamel Yates appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of juror misconduct. The alleged misconduct involved a juror reporting extrinsic information about the definition of an assault charge during deliberations. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Yates failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged misconduct because the extraneous information was not material to the jury's verdict on the counts of conviction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203036","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamel-yates-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-110862","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:sd37200:2023-11-21","opinionId":"b0564c7c-f5ef-53f2-a359-b5aaf4567608","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-marcus-l-lavender-appellant-d37200","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nMARCUS L. LAVENDER, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37200","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Marcus L. Lavender appealed his convictions for assault, armed criminal action, endangering a child, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He argued the trial court erred by not securing a written waiver of counsel, failing to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing, and denying his motion for a new trial regarding an un-subpoenaed witness. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no plain error in the trial court's determination that Lavender knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, especially given his standby counsel and trial performance. The court also found no plain error in denying the new trial motion, as there was no record of a subpoena request.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-marcus-l-lavender-appellant-d37200","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:ed111206:2023-10-31","opinionId":"a1007b37-7a01-5251-9290-27a9dd3cad76","slug":"troy-callahan-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111206","caseName":"Troy Callahan, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111206","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Troy Callahan appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing, following his conviction for first-degree statutory sodomy. Callahan claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to voir dire questions and a forensic interviewer's testimony, and that the motion court improperly adopted the State's proposed findings. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no clear error in its denial of post-conviction relief.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/troy-callahan-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-111206","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:ed110787:2023-10-24","opinionId":"d4e0cbb9-ecdc-50aa-bf0a-d56ad7c78ff3","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jesse-m-jansen-appellant-110787","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jesse M. Jansen, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110787","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jesse M. Jansen appealed his jury convictions for domestic assault and child abuse. He argued the State failed to prove he was eighteen or older, an essential element of child abuse, and that the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury on justified force by a caretaker. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury could reasonably infer Jansen's age from his in-court appearance and circumstantial evidence, and that Jansen failed to inject the issue of entrustment into the case, thus no plain error occurred regarding the jury instruction.","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=202258","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jesse-m-jansen-appellant-110787","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:sd37762:2023-10-17","opinionId":"b843eb38-101f-54d5-b724-3471c8e571f0","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenny-jackson-defendant-appellan-d37762","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nKENNY JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37762","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kenny Jackson appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, possession with intent to distribute, and unlawful firearm possession after a jury trial. The appellate court dismissed Jackson's appeal regarding the possession with intent to distribute charge as moot because the trial court had vacated his sentence and expunged related records in a separate proceeding. The court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no plain error in the jury instructions for drug trafficking and sufficient evidence to support the unlawful firearm possession conviction, and declining plain error review for other claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202154","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-kenny-jackson-defendant-appellan-d37762","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85526:2023-10-10","opinionId":"3ae40c3d-c77d-5c1e-aa22-28c42e64ed39","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-joshua-armando-aldana-d85526","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJoshua Armando Aldana","caseNumber":"WD85526","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Joshua Armando Aldana appealed his conviction for three counts of child abuse, challenging the trial court's verdict directors for all counts. He alleged errors regarding jury unanimity, evidentiary support for disjunctive alternatives, and the omission of cross-references to a disciplinary justification instruction. Aldana also contended the trial court failed to ensure complete jury instructions were submitted and improperly allowed testimony regarding a prior bad act. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on all points.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201874","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-joshua-armando-aldana-d85526","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:sd37681:2023-09-20","opinionId":"1499bd40-c93f-5b6f-a77d-5bae44a10699","slug":"william-h-cook-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d37681","caseName":"WILLIAM H. COOK, Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37681","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-20","year":2023,"display_summary":"William H. Cook appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Cook claimed counsel failed to investigate an alibi witness, present evidence of a suggestive show-up identification, and request a specific jury instruction on show-up identifications. The motion court denied his claims, finding counsel had reasonable trial strategies. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that counsel's actions were based on reasonable trial strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance.","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=201355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-h-cook-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d37681","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:ed111055:2023-09-19","opinionId":"234646ce-e36a-588d-aeec-96cc3d7cf09a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-nore-k-edmond-appellant-111055","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nore K. Edmond, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111055","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Nore K. Edmond was convicted of domestic assault in the second degree and unlawful use of a weapon. On appeal, Edmond challenged the trial court's denial of his motions to strike two venirepersons for cause and the overruling of his hearsay objection to a witness's testimony. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the voir dire rulings because the challenged venirepersons did not serve on the jury, and the hearsay testimony was admissible under several exceptions or was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201219","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-nore-k-edmond-appellant-111055","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:sd37647:2023-09-19","opinionId":"469fa90b-821b-5fb4-aabe-c488daa6e5b0","slug":"qwenten-deon-amlin-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d37647","caseName":"QWENTEN DEON AMLIN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37647","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Qwenten Deon Amlin appealed the motion court's denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief under Rule 29.15, which followed an evidentiary hearing. Amlin raised four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and one claim that the motion court failed to make required findings and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding no merit in any of Amlin's points.","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=201256","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/qwenten-deon-amlin-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respon-d37647","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:ed110923:2023-09-12","opinionId":"5a2803c8-cc0f-5630-9d3b-f7d6ed2aa8ce","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eugene-p-campbell-defendantappellant-110923","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene P. Campbell, Defendant/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110923","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Eugene P. Campbell appealed his convictions for three counts of first-degree child molestation. He argued the trial court erred by excluding testimony from the victim's grandmother regarding a possible motive to fabricate allegations and by failing to ensure jury instructions required a unanimous verdict on each count. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary ruling and concluding the jury instructions adequately ensured juror unanimity for each count.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eugene-p-campbell-defendantappellant-110923","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:sd37722:2023-09-08","opinionId":"8c98e1a0-29b7-544d-a335-702ecd3432ce","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-tyman-devette-latin-defendant-ap-d37722","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nTYMAN DEVETTE LATIN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37722","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-08","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyman Devette Latin appealed his conviction for burglary, tampering with a motor vehicle, and assault, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial. The motion stemmed from the trial court mistakenly reading a voluntary intoxication instruction to the jury, despite having sustained Latin's objection to it, and then giving a curative instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Latin was not prejudiced by the erroneous instruction and subsequent curative instruction, nor by the prosecutor's brief reference to an alcoholic beverage during closing arguments.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-tyman-devette-latin-defendant-ap-d37722","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37363:2023-09-06","opinionId":"1747029d-2fc8-50bb-bf91-f699de57ff3f","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ira-s-bruce-defendant-appellant-d37363","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nIRA S. BRUCE, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37363","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Ira S. Bruce appealed his conviction for first-degree assault, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for intent, the trial court's denial of a mistrial after a prosecutor's line of questioning, and the denial of a mistrial or quashing of the jury pool during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction, no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial given curative actions, and no plain error regarding the jury pool as the venireperson's statements were not inflammatory.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ira-s-bruce-defendant-appellant-d37363","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37714:2023-08-29","opinionId":"7565593f-257a-5beb-b5f2-1fda57daa12d","slug":"vicky-franco-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-et-al-def-d37714","caseName":"VICKY FRANCO, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nLESTER E. COX MEDICAL CENTERS, et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37714","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-29","year":2023,"display_summary":"Vicky Franco appealed a jury's verdict in favor of Lester E. Cox Medical Centers on her tort claims. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Franco's brief contained extensive deficiencies. Specifically, her points relied on were multifarious and failed to state legal reasons for error, her argument sections lacked sufficient citations to the record, and her statement of facts contained argument, all in violation of Rule 84.04.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vicky-franco-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-et-al-def-d37714","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85542:2023-08-15","opinionId":"7151d37f-2c7a-575f-86c0-73e0d60ef6cc","slug":"shawn-h-flaherty-v-state-of-missouri-d85542","caseName":"Shawn H. Flaherty\nvs.\nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85542","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-08-15","year":2023,"display_summary":"Shawn Flaherty was convicted of domestic assault and armed criminal action after shooting his wife. He sought post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of fourth-degree domestic assault. The circuit court found deficient performance but no prejudice, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that Flaherty was prejudiced by counsel's failure to request the instruction. The court vacated Flaherty's convictions and ordered a new trial.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shawn-h-flaherty-v-state-of-missouri-d85542","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:ed110472:2023-08-08","opinionId":"9b020094-1f5c-527f-a576-b62208bffc24","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-m-hamm-appellant-110472","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. John M. Hamm, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110472","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-08","year":2023,"display_summary":"John Hamm appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter, improperly admitting cell phone records, and imposing unlawful life sentences for armed criminal action. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It held that no prejudice resulted from the lack of a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the jury found deliberation for first-degree murder. The court also found the cell phone records were properly admitted as computer-generated evidence not subject to hearsay or Confrontation Clause challenges, and that life sentences for armed criminal action were authorized by statute.","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=198314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-m-hamm-appellant-110472","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:wd85293:2023-08-08","opinionId":"53b64f06-ed81-5a0c-9cd0-51dd17814a75","slug":"ray-johnson-v-state-of-missouri-d85293","caseName":"Ray Johnson\nvs.\nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85293","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-08-08","year":2023,"display_summary":"Ray Johnson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Johnson claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's closing argument and for failing to call a specific fact witness. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, finding counsel's actions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that counsel's conduct did not constitute ineffective assistance.","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=198273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ray-johnson-v-state-of-missouri-d85293","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:sd37479:2023-07-21","opinionId":"b22c90a8-ea29-5db6-9cd2-e6ab6d438cee","slug":"david-james-milcendeau-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d37479","caseName":"DAVID JAMES MILCENDEAU, Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37479","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"David James Milcendeau appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Milcendeau claimed his counsel failed to request a jury instruction during the penalty phase, requiring the jury to find prior criminal conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that counsel's performance was not deficient and Milcendeau failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197797","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-james-milcendeau-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d37479","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:ed110308:2023-06-27","opinionId":"859d862a-17f8-5d41-9815-8df92b8a5e88","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-troy-jackson-bey-appellant-110308","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Troy Jackson-Bey, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110308","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Troy Jackson-Bey was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree assault, two counts of armed criminal action, and first-degree burglary. On appeal, he challenged the admission of video evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence for assault and murder, and alleged plain error in the assault verdict director. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the admission of video clips, sufficient evidence for the convictions, and no plain error in the jury instructions.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-troy-jackson-bey-appellant-110308","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:ed110314:2023-06-13","opinionId":"7bb5707d-9472-5fcf-9ab6-fcc1fe659577","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-adam-craft-appellant-110314","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Adam Craft, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110314","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Adam Craft appealed his convictions for statutory rape, statutory sodomy, child molestation, and sexual misconduct. He claimed the circuit court erred by not granting a mistrial when the State commented on his right to testify, by excluding evidence, and by limiting his closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the circuit court's discretionary rulings on these matters.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196594","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-adam-craft-appellant-110314","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:sd37168:2023-06-13","opinionId":"ef954de5-f4b0-52c6-ab17-63475f2ce9dc","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-keith-h-brown-appellant-d37168","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nKEITH H. BROWN, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37168","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Keith H. Brown appealed his first-degree burglary conviction, arguing that the verdict director given to the jury was legally insufficient because it did not specifically describe the weapon intended to be used. The State of Missouri contended the instruction was proper, directly tracking the language of the relevant statute. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the conviction, holding that the verdict director sufficiently contained all elements of the offense and complied with Missouri Approved Instructions – Criminal 4th, finding no error in the instruction provided to the jury.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-keith-h-brown-appellant-d37168","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":42,"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:ed110884:2023-06-13","opinionId":"a800f12b-e5af-54f3-a49c-9d667c20438f","slug":"tyler-hollis-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-mother-and-conservato-110884","caseName":"Tyler Hollis, a Minor By and Through His Next Friend, Mother and Conservator, Karen Hollis, Appellant, vs. Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110884","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyler Hollis, a minor, sued Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center and Jennifer Lay for negligence, alleging they failed to warn of child abuse by his mother, Heather Lane, who later pleaded guilty to child abuse. At trial, respondents introduced evidence that the mother's then-boyfriend, Ben Andrews, caused Hollis's injuries. The jury found for the respondents. On appeal, Hollis challenged an affirmative converse instruction given by the trial court and the admission of evidence supporting it. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the instruction was proper as it addressed a disputed ultimate issue of who caused the injury, and the evidentiary rulings were not reversible error.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","jury-instructions","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196599","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tyler-hollis-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-mother-and-conservato-110884","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"}]}]}