Trout v. State[1]

Opinion handed down July 19, 2007

The Missouri Supreme Court held amended RSMo §§ 115.342 and 115.350, candidate disqualification, did not violate Art. III, § 21 Original Purpose requirement or Art. III, § 23 Clear Title and Single Purpose requirements. Amended RSMo § 132.032, campaign contribution reform, was entirely invalid and a Supplemental Opinion reenacted the pre-amended version to apply prospectively to former candidates as of July 19, 2007, and the Missouri Ethics Commission was to determine the application of the ruling to current candidates.

Glass v. State[1]

Opinion handed down July 6, 2007

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the motion court did not clearly err in granting Glass’ motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to call as witnesses during the penalty phase of Glass’ trial his medical doctor, former teachers, probation officers and certain experts in order to present mitigating evidence on his behalf.