Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Alexander T. Kalk, Respondent.
Case Number: ED92326
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-alexander-t-kalk-respondent-d92326
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=35554
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+Alexander+T.+Kalk%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: misdemeanor)

---
## Syllabus

3Jntbe;!ffilissouri<!Courtof~ppeaIs
<!Eastern1JBistrict
DIVISIONFOUR
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.ED92326
STATEOFMISSOURI,
Appellant,
AppealfromtheCircuitCourt
ofSt.LouisCounty
v.
ALEXANDERT.KALK,
HonorableGloriaC.Reno

Introduction
TheStateofMissouri(State)appealsthetrialcourt'sjudgmentgrantingdefendant
AlexanderKalk'sMotionforJudgmentofAcquittalfollowingthejury'sverdictofguiltonthe
chargethatDefendantviolatedanorderofprotection.Weaffirmthetrialcourt'sjudgment.
Background
InJanuary2006,duringthependencyoftheirdissolutionaction,JulieKalk(Wife)
obtainedanexparteorderofprotectionagainstAlexanderKalk(Defendant),thenherhusband.
TheorderofprotectionprohibitedDefendantfromenteringthepremisesat19BlackCreek
Lane,wherehepreviouslyresidedwithWifeandtheiryoungchildren.Defendantwasserved
withtheorderofprotectionbyhisdivorceattorneyJackEisen(Eisen),whopersonallyhandeda
copyoftheordertoDefendantonJanuary20,2006.
OnFebruary17,2006,Wife'sattorneyandEisenwerenegotiatinga dismissalofthe
orderofprotection.EiseninformedDefendantofthenegotiationsthroughemailandtelephone.

Wifeofferedtodismisstheadultabusepetitionandorderofprotectionif Defendantagreedto,
amongotherthings,giveWifeexclusivepossessionofthemaritalresidence,refrainfrom
disturbingherpeace,andfollowa parentingplanrecommendedbytheguardianadlitem.After
DefendantandEisendiscussedWife'sofferandDefendant'scounterproposal,Defendanttold
Eisenhewould"sleeponit."Thereafter,EisensentWife'sattorneyanotheremailstating,"I just
receivedyourfaxofa memodismissingtheadultabusematter.Hasthisbeenfiledtoday?"
Eisentestified,however,thatthedismissalmusthavebeensignedbythejudgetobeeffective.
Thatsameday,at 4:51p.m.,DefendantsentEisenanemailstating,"I wantconfirmation
rightnowthattheadultabusewasdropped."DefendanttestifiedthatEisentoldhimheobtained
thedismissaloftheorderofprotectionin writing,andto"justtakeit easy."Eisentestifiedthat
hereceiveda copyofa dismissaloftheorderofprotection,informedDefendantofhisreceiptof
thecopy,butfurtheradvisedDefendantthatthedismissalwasnotyeteffectivebecauseit had
notbeensignedbythejudge.EisenfurthertestifiedthatheadvisedDefendantnottogoto
Wife'sresidence.
OnMonday,February20,DefendantsentEisenane-mailstating,"FaxmeASAPbefore
4:30a copyofthenoticeoftheappointmentof[theguardianadlitem]aswellasa copyofthe
formaldismissalofadultabuse."
Eisentestifiedthat,onFebruary21,2006,hereceiveda faxfromWife'sattorneystating,
"AttachedpleasefindTXreportsshowingthedismissalnoticebeingfaxedtocourtonFriday
[February17,2006]asI represented.DismissalwassentandRCVDto615-4519at 5:13p.m.
and615-8280at 5:07.Notsurewhysenttobothnumbersorwhatthosenumbersarefor.
DivisionfifthfloorAB."TheStatepresentednoevidencetothecontrarythatwould
demonstratethatWife'sattorneyhadnotfiledbyfacsimilethedismissalnoticeto thecourton
2

February17,2006,norevidencethatthecourthadnotreceivedit at thattimeandday.Alsoon
February21,2006,EisenreceivedanemailfromWife'sattorneystatingthatthedismissalwas
notin thecourtfileand"maystillbewanderingaroundthecourt"becausethedivisionnumber
hadbeenlistedincorrectly.Additionally,EisenunderstoodWife'sattorneytostatethatWifeno
longerwoulddismisstheorderofprotection.Wife'sattorneyfileda withdrawalofthedismissal
thatday,February21,2006.ThecourtminutesshowthatonFebruary21,2006,a motionto
withdrawthedismissalwasfiledbyWifeandgrantedoverDefendant'sobjections.
OnFebruary21,2006,Defendantenteredthehousethatwasthesubjectoftheexparte
orderofprotection.
OnMarch2,2006,DefendantwaschargedbyInformationwithCountI,a classA
misdemeanor,violationofanorderofprotection,in violationofSections455.010,455.045and
455.085,RSMo2000,I andCountII,a classB misdemeanor,makinga falsereport,in violation
ofSection575.080.Theinformationallegedthat,onFebruary21,2006,at approximately12:30
p.m.,Defendant"knowinglyviolatedthetermsandconditionsoftheorder[ofprotection]by
enteringthepremisesat19BlackCreekLane"andthat,at approximately12:56p.m,he
"knowinglymadea falsereportto. . . lawenforcementofficers,thata crime,namely,anassault
on[Defendant]byher[Wife'smother]grabbinghisrightupperarmapplyinga crushingforceto
histricepsandbicepsandbyherbeatinghimabouttheshoulders,headandbackwithherarms
andhandshadoccurred."
EisenwithdrewasDefendant'sattorneyonFebruary22,2006,informingDefendantthat
thecourthadreinstatedtheadultabusecasebecauseDefendanthadgonetotheresidence.
A jurytrialtookplacefromOctober20throughOctober22,2008,duringwhichevidence
wasadducedasoutlinedin theInformationabove;furtherevidenceregardingDefendant's
IAllsubsequentstatutorycitationsaretoRSMo2000,unlessotherwiseindicated.
3

allegedviolationoftheorderofprotectionandmakinga falsereportonFebruary21,2006,was
presented.
AfterthecloseoftheState'sevidence,Defendantfileda motionforjudgmentof
acquittal,whichthetrialcourtdenied.Atthecloseofalltheevidence,Defendantagainfileda
motionforjudgmentofacquittal,whichthetrialcourtalsodenied.
OnOctober22,2008,thejuryfoundDefendantguiltyofbothcounts.Thejuryassessed
punishmentofsixmonthsofimprisonmentin thecountyjailfortheviolationoftheorderof
protection,andrecommendeda fineof$500forthechargeofmakinga falsereport.Thetrial
courtacceptedthejury'srecommendedjudgmentandsentence.
OnOctober31,2008,afterthejurywasdischarged,Defendanttimelyfileda Motionfor
JudgmentofAcquittal(Motion)pursuanttoRule27.07(clInhisMotion,Defendantalleged
thatthe"evidenceat trialwasinsufficienttosustaintheconviction,andthereforetheverdict
shouldbesetasideasa matteroflaw,anda judgmentofacquittalsubstitutedtherefor."
Defendantalsofileda motionfornewtrialonthesameday,allegingthatthetrialcourterredin
denyingDefendant'spretrialmotiontodismissCountI.Insupportofhismotionfornewtrial,
Defendantallegedthathecouldnotbeprosecutedforviolatingtheorderofprotectionon
February21,2006,becausetheorderofprotectionwasanexparteorderthathadbeen
voluntarilydismissedbyWifeunderRule67.02(a)onFebruary17,2006.Defendantarguedin
hismotionfornewtrialthatWife'sdismissaloftheorderofprotectionbecameeffectiveupon
herfilingthedismissalwiththetrialcourtonFebruary17,2006,becausetheexparteorderwas
a civilaction,andWifevoluntarilydismissedherpetitionforanorderofprotectionpriorto the
takingofanyevidence.
2AllrulecitationsaretoMissouriSupremeCourtRules(2008),unlessotherwisenoted.
4

OnNovember17,2008,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdenyingDefendant'smotionfora
newtrial,butgranting"Defendant'sMotionforJudgmentofAcquittalNot-with-standingthe
jury'sverdictofguilt"astoCount1.Thetrialcourtfurtherorderedthatthejudgmentbe
suspendedfortendays.OnDecember1, 2008,thetrialcourtentereditsjudgmentgranting
Defendant'sMotionforJudgmentofAcquittalNotwithstandingtheJury'sverdictofguiltasto
Count1.3
OnDecember11,2008,theStatefileditsnoticeofappealwiththisCourt.Thisappeal
follows.
PointonAppeal
Initssolepointonappeal,theStatecontendsthetrialcourterredwhenit granted
Defendant'sMotionbecausethereis nolegalorfactualbasisin thecaseat handtosupportsucha
decision.4
StandardofReview
Anappellatecourtreviewsa judgmentofacquittaltodeterminewhethertheState
adducedsufficientevidencetomakea submissiblecase.Statev.Richardson,22S.W.3d753,
755(Mo.App.E.D.2000).Indeterminingwhethertheevidenceis sufficienttosupporta
3 CounselfortheStatenotedduringoralargumentthata judgment"notwithstandingthejury'sverdict"is permitted
onlyincivilcases,andis nota remedyavailabletodefendantsincriminalmatters.Therecordshowsthat
Defendanttimelyfileda motionforjudgmentofacquittalpursuanttoRule27.07(c)oftheMissouriRulesof
CriminalProcedure,whichallowsa motionforjudgmentofacquittaltobemadeorrenewedwithinfifteendaysof
thejury'sguiltyverdict.Suchmotionis distinctfroma motionforjudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdictauthorized
underRule72.01oftheMissouriRulesofCivilProcedure.Whilethetrialcourtinadvertentlyreferredtoits
judgmentasa "JudgmentofAcquittalNot-with-standingtheJury'sVerdict,"suchmisnomerdoesnotrenderthe
trialcourt'sjudgmentvoid.Thetrialcourt'srulingandjudgmentwasenteredin responsetoDefendant'sproperly
filedMotionforAcquittal.
4 TheState'sbrieffailstocomplywiththerequirementsofRule84.04.TheState'spointonappealdoesnotstate
thelegalreasonsfortheclaimoferror,nordoesit explainwhy,inthecontextofthecase,thelegalreasonssupport
itsclaimthaterroroccurred.Further,theStatehasfailedtolistthecasesandotherlegalauthorityuponwhichthe
Stateprincipallyrelies.Rules30.06(d)and84.04(d).TherequirementsofRule84.04aremandatory.Statev.
Slaughter,267S.W.3d841,845(Mo.App.S.D.2008).DespitetheState'sfailuretoadheretothebriefing
requirementssetforthinRule84.04,wewillreviewtheState'sclaimexgratia.
5

conviction,thisCourtacceptsastrueallreasonableinferencesdrawnfromtheevidenceand
disregardsallevidenceandinferencestothecontrary.Id.
Discussion
Whetherthetrialcourterredinsettingasidethejuryverdictandenteringa judgmentof
acquittalis dependantupontheanswertooneseeminglysimplequestion:Wastheorderof
protectionin effectat thetimeDefendantenteredWife'shome?
It is undisputedthatDefendantenteredWife'shomeonFebruary21,2006.Therecord
containsevidencethatDefendanthadbeencounseledbyhisdivorceattorneythattheorderof
protectionwasin effect,andthatWife'svoluntarydismissaloftheorderofprotectionwasnot
effectiveuntilthedismissalwassignedbya judge.SuchevidenceasadducedbytheState
establishesa submissiblecasesufficienttosustainDefendant'sconviction,butonlyif theorder
ofprotectionwasindeedin effectonFebruary21,2006,whenDefendantenteredWife'shome.
Theanswertothisquestionis foundwithinSection455.060,andmandatesouraffirmanceofthe
trialcourt'sjudgment.
Section455.060.5provides,in pertinentpart,that"[a]nyorderofprotectionS. . . entered
undersections455.010to455.085shallterminateuponthefilingofa motiontoterminatethe
orderofprotectionbythepetitioner;"andmakesexceptiononlyincaseswheretheordergrants
custodyofa minorchildtotherespondent.Section455.060.5.
Theevidenceshowsthatthedismissalwasfaxedto thecourtonFriday,February17,
2006,at 5:07and5:13p.m.,andthuswaseffectiveimmediately.EisentestifiedthatonFebruary
21,2006,hereceiveda faxfromWife'sattorneystating,"AttachedpleasefindTXreports
showingthedismissalnoticebeingfaxedtocourtonFriday[February17,2006]asI represented.
5 Inreferringto"any"orderofprotection,Section455.060.5doesnotdifferentiatebetweenexparteordersandfull
ordersofprotection.Neitherdowe.
6

DismissalwassentandRCVDto615-4519at 5:13p.m.and615-8280at 5:07.Notsurewhy
sentto bothnumbersorwhatthosenumbersarefor.DivisionfifthfloorAB."TheState
presentednoevidencetothecontrarythatwoulddemonstratethatWife'sattorneyhadnotfiled
byfacsimilethedismissalnoticetothecourtonFebruary17,2006,norevidencethatthecourt
hadnotreceivedthedismissalat thattimeandday.Inlightofourstandardofreview,wemust
acceptastrueallreasonableinferencesdrawnfromtheevidencepresented,includingthe
evidencethatWife'sattorneyhadindeedfaxedtothecourta dismissaloftheorderofprotection
onFebruary17,2006.SeeRichardson,22S.W.3dat 755.
TheTwenty-firstJudicialCircuitCourtRule3.4(2)provides,"Adocumentreceivedby
facsimiletransmissionwillbedeemedfiledasofthedateandtimerecordedbythefacsimile.
Thepartytransmittingthedocumentis responsibleforthecompletenessofthetransmission."
AccordingtoSection455.060.5,theorderofprotectionwastherebyterminateduponthefiling
ofthemotiontoterminate,or"dismissalnotice,"asit wasreferencedhere.Therefore,the
actionstakenbyDefendantontheafternoonofFebruary21,2006,allegedbytheStatetohave
constituteda violationoftheorderofprotection,wouldnothaveviolatedanorderofprotection
thathadbeendismissedpriortothattime.Accordingly,thetrialcourtproperlygranted
Defendant'smotionforjudgmentofacquittalafterthejuryreturneda verdictofguiltonCountI,
theviolationoftheorderofprotection.TheState'sappealis denied.
Conclusion
Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtis affirmed.
~A-L~
KurtS. Odenwald,PresidingJudge
GeorgeW.DraperIII,J.,Concurs
RoyL.Richter,J.,Concursinresult
7

3Jntbemissouri~ourtof~ppeaIs
(!Eastern1!\istri!t
DIVISIONFOUR
STATEOFMISSOURI,
No.ED92326
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AppealfromtheCircuitCourt
ofSt.LouisCounty
Appellant,
vs.
ALEXANDERT.KALK,
HonorableGloriaC.Reno

---

## I concurintheresultbutwritetobringattentionto theproblemscreatedbythe

statutesandlocalcourtrulesofSt.LouisCounty.Here,thewifefileda Petition
requestinganOrderofProtection,whichtheCourtgranted,exparte.PartoftheCourt's
responsibilityis detailedinSection455.040.3,whichreads:
3.Acopyofanyorderofprotectiongrantedpursuanttosections455.010
to455.085shallbeissuedtothepetitionerandtothelocallaw
enforcementagencyinthejurisdictionwherethepetitionerresides.The
clerkshallalsoissuea  copyofanyorderofprotectiontothelocallaw
enforcement'agencyresponsibleformaintainingtheMissouriuniformlaw
enforcementsystemoranyothercomparablelawenforcementsystemthe
samedaytheorderis granted.Thelawenforcementagencyresponsiblefor
maintainingMULESshallenterinformationcontainedintheorderfor
purposesofverificationwithintwenty-fourhoursfromthetimetheorder
isgranted.Anoticeofexpirationorofterminationofanyorderof
protectionshallbeissuedtothelocallawenforcementagencyandtothe
lawenforcementagencyresponsibleformaintainingMULESoranyother
comparablelawenforcementsystem.Thelawenforcementagency
responsibleformaintainingtheapplicablelawenforcementsystemshall

entersuchinformationinthesystem.Theinformationcontainedinan
orderofprotectionmaybeenteredintheMissouriuniformlaw
enforcementsystemorcomparablelawenforcementsystemusinga direct
automateddatatransferfromthecourtautomatedsystemtothelaw
enforcementsystem.(emphasisadded)
Asa practicalmatter,theCourtenterstheExParteOrder,andCourtClerksenter
thefactofthatOrder'sexistenceintotheMissouriUniformLawEnforcement
System(MULES).Thelocallawenforcementagencywherethepetitioner
residesalsoreceivesa copyoftheOrder.Theentryofthisinformationpermits
lawenforcementofficerstodetermineif anOrderexistswhenviolationsof
Ordersarealleged.LawenforcementofficersroutinelyrelyonMULESfor
verificationofoutstandingarrestwarrantsandOrdersofProtection.
Inthiscase,Petitionerapparently!fileda MotiontoDismisstheOrderon
Friday,February17,2006.TherewastestimonythattheMotionwasfaxedtothe
Courtsometimeafter5:00p.m.ontheeveningofFebruary1ih.TheTwenty-first
JudicialCircuitCourtRule3.4(2)provides,"Adocumentreceivedbyfacsimile
transmissionwillbedeemedfiledasofthedateandtimerecordedbythe
facsimile.Thepartytransmittingthedocumentis responsibleforthe
completenessofthetransmission."Sincethefaxwouldnothavebeenseenby
Courtpersonnelafterbusinesshoursona Fridayevening,MULESwasnot
notifiedofthetermination.Courtpersonnelwouldnothavebeenawareofthe
intendedterminationuntiltheCourtopenedonTuesdaymorning,February21st,
asFebruary20wasthePresidents'DayHolidayandtheCourtwasclosed.
1Thelegalfiledoesnotincludeanydocumentindicatingthata MotiontoTenninatethe
Orderof ProtectionorMotionto DismissthePetitionwasfaxedtotheCourt.
2

Lawenforcementis thereforeplacedin theunenviablepositionofbeing
unabletodeterminewhethera Court'sOrderofProtectionis valid,orif it has
beenterminatedbythefaxedfilingofa MotionbythePetitionerwhichhasnot
beenseenbyCourtpersonnelandthereforehasnotbeenenteredintoMULES.
Thestatuteallowsa Petitionertodissolvea CourtOrderwithoutjudicialaction,
andtheLocalCourtRulesofSt.LouisCountyexacerbatethesituationby
deemingsomethingfiledwhenCourtpersonnelareunawareofthe"filing."
Nightsandweekendsare"primetime"forviolationsofOrdersofProtection,and
lawenforcementwillalwayswonderif theinformationfromMULESis accurate,
orif thereis a MotiontoDismisssittingin thetrayofa faxmachine,waitingtobe
seenbycourtpersonnelat thestartofthenextbusinessday.
Innootherareaofthelawis a partygiventhepowertounilaterally
dissolvea Court'sOrder;permittinga partytodosowhentheexistenceofsuch
anOrderis requiredtobeenteredintoa databaserelieduponbylawenforcement
invitesarreststhatmaylaterbedeterminedtohavebeenunnecessary.The
LegislaturemaywishtochangethestatutetorequireCourtapprovalbeforea
Court'sorderis dissolved.
~(~
RoyL.Riter,Judge
3