Missouri Lawyers Media Missouri legal news and public notices
Criminal Law
Right To Confrontation
Witness Testimony
Live Video
Where a defendant in a statutory rape case argued that the trial court erred by allowing witness testimony by two-way live video, the court did not find that the witness was unavailable, so the video testimony violated the defendant’s right to confrontation, and the judgment is reversed.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
State v. Smith (MLW No.77790/Case No. SC99086 – 20 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Fischer, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis City, Wright, J. (Nina McDonnell, St. Louis, for appellant) (Kristen S. Johnson, Jefferson City, for respondent).
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183376
Self Defense
Jury Instruction
Arson
Where a defendant appealed his conviction for voluntary manslaughter and armed criminal action, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to give a self-defense instruction, there was substantial evidence of the imminent threat that the defendant’s son-in-law was going to burn down a trailer on the defendant’s property, so the court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to whether the defendant was entitled to use self-defense to prevent arson.
Vacated; remanded.
State v. Whitaker (MLW No. 77793/Case No. SC98856 – 11 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Wilson, J.; all concur) Appealed from circuit court, Iron County, Parker, J. (James Egan, Columbia, for appellant) (Evan J. Buchheim and Julia E. Rives, Jefferson City, for respondent).
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183373
Juvenile Law
Adjudication Hearing
Video Appearance
Due Process
Where a juvenile, who was charged with acts that would constitute first-degree assault and armed criminal action if committed by an adult, argued that his due process rights were violated when he was required to participate in the adjudication hearing by two-way video, the juvenile had a due process right to be present at the hearing, which was his opportunity to defend himself against the juvenile officer’s accusations, so the judgment is vacated and remanded.
Exclusion
Concurring opinion by Powell, J.: “The circumstances justifying limiting, restricting, or denying a defendant’s physical access to his or her trial would be highly unusual and extraordinary. But as long as the trial or proceeding is conducted in a manner that ensures a fair and just hearing for the defendant, the exclusion would not per se violate due process. Here, the circumstances surrounding the adjudication proceeding did not justify excluding J.A.T. from the hearing as the circuit court could have taken other measures to ensure J.A.T.’s safe presence in the courtroom. Because J.A.T. could not easily confer with counsel and be present in the courtroom to observe the proceedings and witnesses that testified, J.A.T. was prejudiced and did not receive a fair and just hearing as the principal opinion correctly concludes. Therefore, I concur.”
Vacated; remanded.
In the Interest of J.A.T. v. Jackson County Juvenile Office (MLW No. 77788/Case No. SC99251 – 33 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Fischer, J.; Wilson, C.J., Russell, Breckenridge, Ransom and Draper, JJ., concur; Powell, J., concurs in separate opinion filed; Ransom and Draper, JJ., concur in opinion of Powell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Otto, J. (Jeffrey C. Esparza, Kansas City, MO for appellant) (Bree A. Sturner, Kansas City, MO for respondent).
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183378
Adjudication Hearing
Witness Testimony
Confrontation Clause
Where a juvenile, who was found to have committed acts that would constitute first-degree statutory sodomy if committed by an adult, argued that the trial court erred in permitting witness testimony by two-way live video, the procedure did not satisfy constitutional confrontation clause safeguards, and the trial court did not make the requisite witness-specific findings that would excuse the witness from testifying, so the judgment is vacated.
Vacated; remanded.
In the Interest of: C.A.R.A. (MLW No. 77789/Case No. SC99231 – 44 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Fischer, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Otto, J. (Jeffrey C. Esparza, Kansas City, MO for appellant) (Bree A. Sturner, Kansas City, MO for respondent).
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183377
Negligence
Dangerous Condition
Sovereign Immunity
Jury Instructions
Where the state challenged a judgment in favor of a plaintiff and her husband after the woman was injured when she fell down a flight of stairs at a circuit courthouse, jointly owned by the city and the county, sufficient evidence showed that the stairs constituted a dangerous condition of which the state had notice, but the jury was erroneously instructed that it could find the state liable for mere control over the stairwell, rather than exclusive possession and control, for purposes of waiving sovereign immunity, and the court erred in sustaining the city’s motion for directed verdict because the plaintiff produced evidence showing that the city was a legal owner of the courthouse.
Judgment is affirmed in part; vacated; remanded.
Allen v. State (MLW No. 77792/Case No. SC98929 – 23 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Powell, J.; all concur) Appealed from circuit court, Stoddard County, Miller, J. (D. Matthew Edwards and Michael Moroni, Cape Girardeau, for the Allens) (Katherine S. Walsh, St. Louis, for the state) (Mary Eftink Boner, Jackson, for the county) (A.M. Spradling III, Cape Girardeau, for the city).
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183374
School Districts
Confidential Information
Contract Termination
Where a school board challenged a judgment reversing its decision to terminate a teacher’s contract after the teacher transferred confidential student information to her personal email account, the trial court’s judgment is vacated and the board’s decision to terminate the teacher is affirmed because competent and substantial evidence supported the finding that the teacher willfully and purposefully disclosed confidential information in violation of the district’s policy.
Vacated; affirmed.
Ferry v. Board of Education (MLW No. 77791/Case No. SC98959 – 12 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Breckenridge, J.; Wilson, C.J., Powell, Fischer, Ransom, Draper, JJ., and Gardner, Sp.J., concur. Russell, J., not participating) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Beetem, J. (Duane A. Martin, J. Drew Marriott and Ryan VanFleet, Independence for appellant. David J. Moen, Jefferson City; Dennis E. Egan, Kansas City; and Roger G. Brown, Jefferson City for respondent.
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183375
