State Conference of NAACP v. State

Opinion handed down October 30, 2018

On September 14, 2016, the Missouri General Assembly successfully overturned Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of House Bill 1631 (“HB 1631”).[1]  HB 1631 replaced the then-existing voter identification requirements in Missouri with more stringent standards (“Voter ID Law”).[2]  The Missouri State Conference for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League of Women Voters of Missouri, and Christine Dragonette (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), sued the State of Missouri and the Missouri Secretary of State (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that the funding provisions of the Voter ID Law were not satisfied, and therefore the voter identification requirements should not be enforced.[3]  The Circuit Court of Cole County granted the Defendants’ motion for a judgment on the pleadings, effectuating a dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiffs’ complaint.[4]  The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.[5]

Kelsay v. Ernst

Opinion handed down September 27, 2018

I. Introduction

            After an apparent misunderstanding at a local pool, Melanie Kelsay found herself arrested and seriously injured.[1]  She claimed a police officer used excessive force when arresting her, and she sued the officer for violating her rights under the Fourth Amendment.[2]  The officer responsible for Kelsay’s injuries moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity.[3]  The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.[4]  On appeal, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding the officer did not violate Kelsay’s clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment.[5]

Shallow v. Follwell

Opinion handed down September 11,2018

The Supreme Court of Missouri issued a 6-1 opinion, holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed an expert witness to deviate from his deposition testimony at trial nor when it admitted five medical experts with different specialties to testify about the case.[1]

Latham v. State

Opinion handed down September 11, 2018

            I. Facts and Holding

            In 2011, David Latham was charged with and subsequently pleaded guilty to trafficking drugs in violation of section 195.223 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.[1]  He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.[2]  The plea court suspended the execution of his sentence, placing him on supervised probation for a period of five years.[3]  In August 2013, the plea court found Latham violated his probation and ordered execution of his fifteen-year sentence.[4]  In November 2013, after the execution of his sentence, Latham filed a pro se Supreme Court of Missouri Rule 24.025 motion for post-conviction relief.[5]  Latham’s motion alleged relief was warranted on three grounds:

(1) counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate why his preliminary hearing was waived; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to spend sufficient time with him to defend him at the revocation hearing; and (3) counsel was ineffective in that she misled him into believing she would request long-term drug treatment at his sentencing hearing.[6]

Washington v. Denney

Opinion handed down August 13, 2018

            Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington was an inmate at Crossroads Correctional Center (“Crossroads”) in Missouri.[1]  He suffered from asthma and other respiratory ailments that were aggravated by secondhand smoke.[2]  While Crossroads was nominally a smoke-free facility, in reality a large portion of the population smoked and were permitted to do so in their cells.[3]  This smoke-intensive environment aggravated Washington’s condition, which led him to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to protect his Constitutional rights.[4]  Washington brought suit against a group of prison officials alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.[5]  Washington prevailed, collecting compensatory and punitive damages in a federal district court.[6]  A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury’s findings of fact but vacated the award of punitive damages and remanded the case for further proceedings on damages.[7]

State v. Stricklin

Opinion handed down June 26, 2018

            A Missouri mother awoke one morning in January of 2013 to discover her two-year old daughter crying and bleeding from her genitals.[1]  She took her to a hospital where she underwent surgery and spent five days recuperating.[2]  Suspicion fell on the mother’s boyfriend, Thomas A. Stricklin (“Stricklin”), who was staying in the house at the time of the incident.[3]  In a December 2016 trial, Stricklin was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy, partially based on evidence collected in a police interrogation wherein Stricklin was not given Miranda warnings.[4]  The trial court admitted the evidence on a finding that the interrogation was not custodial.[5]  In a divided decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District reversed and remanded the case, holding that, at a certain point, the interrogation became custodial and therefore portions of the interview should have been suppressed on Miranda grounds.[6]