Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Don't miss
Home / Opinions / Courts / Court of Appeals, Southern District / Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Digest: April 18, 2022

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Digest: April 18, 2022

Criminal Law

Domestic Abuse

911 Call

Hearsay

Where a defendant in a domestic assault case challenged his convictions, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the recording of a 911 call describing the disturbance, the record supported the finding that the challenged evidence was admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, and the Confrontation Clause was not violated.

Judgment is affirmed; remanded for the correction of clerical errors.

State v. Christianson (MLW No. 78147/Case No. SD37032 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Growcock, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Greene County, Powell, J. (Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for appellant) (Gregory L. Barnes, Jefferson City, and Paris Dakota, Springfield, for respondent).

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185994

 

 

Post-Conviction Relief

Guilty Plea

Learning Disability

Where a defendant challenged the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that he suffered from a learning disability at the time of his guilty plea that made the plea unknowing and involuntary, the defendant fully participated in the plea hearing, did not behave as if he was not competent to proceed, and the plea counsel testified that he did not have concerns about the defendant’s competency, so the point is denied.

Judgment is affirmed.

Hurst v. State (MLW No. 78148/Case No. SD37194 – 5 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Burrell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Lawrence County, Cole, J.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185993

 

 

Real Property

Warranty Deed

Reformation

Mutual Mistake

Where appellants challenged a judgment that reformed a warranty deed and divested them of their interest in certain real property, the trial court’s judgment was erroneous because it misapplied the law when it reformed the deed based solely on the donor’s unilateral mistake absent clear, cogent and convincing evidence of fraud or mutual mistake.

Judgment is reversed.

Singleton v. Singleton (MLW No. 78149/Case No. SD37106 – 12 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Growcock, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Stoddard County, Preyer, J. (Christopher Lynn Yarbro, Poplar Bluff, for appellant) (Michael Anthony Moroni, Cape Girardeau, for respondent).

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186033