Monday, January 23, 2017

State v. Holman

Opinion handed down December 6, 2016
After fatally shooting his wife, David Holman (“Defendant”) was read his Miranda rights and proceeded to talk with law enforcement officials, giving incriminating statements.[1]  Only when asked to sign a search consent form to his home, did Defendant state, “I ain’t signing shit without my attorney.”[2]  On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the Defendant did not clearly and unequivocally invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel after being read his Miranda rights and reversed the decision of the lower court.[3]

Thursday, January 19, 2017

City of Kansas City v. Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners

Opinion handed down January 17, 2017

            In an effort to raise Kansas City’s minimum wage from $7.70 an hour to $13 an hour by 2023, a committee in support of such attempted to bring the issue up for a vote on the November 3, 2015, ballot.  On appeal from a trial court’s decision denying the measure to be brought on the ballot, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that any challenge to the ordinance was premature and reversed.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

State v. Bazell

Opinion handed down August 23, 2016 

            The Supreme Court of Missouri held that misdemeanor stealing offenses could not be enhanced to felonies under Missouri Revised Statutes section 570.030.3 because the enhancement provision was worded in such a way that rendered it inapplicable to the underlying stealing statute.[1]  The court’s ruling is based on a matter of statutory construction that was not addressed on appeal nor initially briefed by either party on transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri.[2] 

Friday, January 13, 2017

Lopez-Matias v. State

 Opinion handed down December 8, 2016

            In Lopez-Matias v. State, the Supreme Court of Missouri examined whether the denial of the right to be released on bail or other surety to individuals who are unable to provide proof of their lawful presence in the United States violated the Constitution of the State of Missouri.[1]  Ultimately, the court held that the requirement was unconstitutional, as it denied the defendant his constitutional right to have his conditions for release examined on an individual basis, in which the particular circumstances of his case could be analyzed.[2]