In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Timothy D. Daily, a/k/a Timothy Dailey, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownSC84981
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion
Case Style: In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Timothy D. Daily, a/k/a Timothy Dailey, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: SC84981 Handdown Date: 04/01/2003 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Hon. Stephen Mitchell Counsel for Appellant: Emmett D. Queener Counsel for Respondent: James R. Layton Opinion Summary: The jury found Timothy Dailey to be a sexually violent predator, and he appeals, claiming instructional error. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Court en banc holds: The trial court failed to instruct the jury to find that Dailey lacked volitional capacity to control his behavior, as required by this Court's decision in Thomas v. State, 74 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. banc 2002). Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. All concur. Opinion: Timothy Dailey contests the jury's finding that he is a sexually violent predator. See sections 632.480 to 632.513, RSMo 2000 . He claims the jury was not properly instructed because no instruction required the jury to find that he had serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. This claim is controlled by this Court's decision in Thomas v. State , 74 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. banc 2002). The instruction defining "mental abnormality" must read as follows: As used in this instruction, "mental abnormality" means a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity that predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses in a degree that causes the
individual serious difficulty in controlling his behavior. Thomas at 792. The instruction in this case contained no such language. The equal protection claim and all other claims raised by Dailey may not arise on retrial and are not discussed. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. All concur. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450