State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Karla C. Ellis, Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
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
3
onto using a paddle. Ellis told Sergeant she used the paddle the last time she had spanked Child. Ellis denied seeing any bruising from that spanking. When Sergeant asked Ellis whether anyone else might have put the bruises on Child, Ellis suggested that maybe Grandmother could have done so or that Child could have fallen. While at Ellis's home, Sergeant saw the belt and paddle sitting on the kitchen table. Both the belt and paddle had the children's names written on them. The belt was leather and in two pieces. The paddle was a rough plank of wood. When asked about the children's names on the belt and paddle, Ellis told Sergeant "it was so that they knew what it was for." Both the belt and paddle were photographed and taken into evidence. Based on the photographs, physical evidence, and statements, Sergeant determined Child's bruises were caused by the belt and paddle. Sergeant further found that the extent and nature of the bruising would have caused Child pain and indicated child abuse. The State charged Ellis with the class D felony of abuse or neglect of a child, Section 568.060, 1 alleging that in March 2020, Ellis knowingly caused Child to suffer physical injury as a result of abuse by hitting the child with a belt and paddle causing bruising to the child's back and buttocks. The case proceeded to trial, where Ellis testified in her own defense. Ellis denied causing Child's bruising. Ellis testified that she spanked her children regularly with her hand and that there had never been any bruising. The last time Ellis recalled spanking Child was when he "had picked up a decently heavy toy and was getting ready to throw it at [Sister's] head." Ellis was shown the first photograph showing Child's bruising. Ellis agreed that the extent and nature of the bruising appeared to show serious physical injury to Child. When
1 All Section references are to RSMo (2016).
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389