State ex rel. Doe v. Moore[1]

Opinion handed down August 26, 2008[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held: (1) trial courts may unilaterally modify the terms of a defendant’s probation, even if those modifications include additional requirements that were not included at the time the defendant agreed to the plea agreement; and, (2) changes imposed by the court that could not have been required at the time of the defendant’s guilty plea may be imposed during the defendant’s probation. Doing so would not violate the constitutional protection against ex post facto legislation.

State v. McLaughlin[1]

Opinion handed down August 26, 2008[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that if a jury deadlocks at the punishment stage of a capital trial, judges may undergo the required statutory analysis and impose a death sentence despite the jury’s inability to agree on a punishment.

State ex rel. Rogers v. Cohen[1]

Opinion handed down August 26, 2008

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion


The Missouri Supreme Court held that a transcript of a recorded interview taken in anticipation of litigation is not discoverable by a grand jury subpoena unless it consists of tangible work product, and substantial need and undue hardship are shown. Furthermore, a court may never order disclosure of intangible work product, even if a party demonstrates substantial need and undue hardship.

State ex. rel. Wyeth v. Grady[1]

Opinion handed down August 26, 2008[1]
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

In State ex. rel Wyeth v. Grady, the Missouri Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of prohibition that would have prevented the St. Louis Circuit Court from denying a motion to dismiss a lawsuit based on forum non conveniens[2]. Plaintiffs were hormone therapy users who sued drug manufacturers for injuries sustained from use of their pharmaceuticals.[3] The court reasoned that because the defendants could not show that taking the case would be an undue burden for the Missouri court system or that trying the case in Missouri courts would be oppressive to the companies, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the forum non conveniens motion. [4]

Janice Sides, et al. v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, et al.[1]

Opinion handed down August 5, 2008[1]

The Missouri Supreme Court held that an expert can testify in a res ipsa loquitur-based medical malpractice suit to show that no injury would have occurred without defendant's negligence. The case, Sides v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, was a case of first impression on the issue.[2] Previously, Missouri appellate courts disallowed plaintiffs from using expert witnesses when proceeding under a res ipsa loquitur theory in medical malpractice cases. Courts instead required that before a res ipsa theory could be forwarded that "laypersons…know, based on their common knowledge or experience, that the cause of plaintiff's injury does not ordinarily exist but for negligence of the one in control,"[3]