State v. Ward[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

Where criminal defendant was charged with and convicted of possession of a controlled substance with an intent to deliver, the trial court correctly prevented defendant from testifying because he refused to take an oath or affirmation, as required by statute.

Vandyne v. Allied Mortgage Capital Corp.[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying Plaintiffs' class definition because it included an improper merit determination and insufficiently definite terms, but agreed with the circuit court’s finding that the mere fact that a class attorney and named plaintiff were related did not amount to a violation of Supreme Court Rule 52.08’s adequacy of representation provision.

Kidde America, Inc. v. Director of Revenue[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2008 Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that RSMo §§ 32.068 and 32.069 were not in conflict with RSMo § 143.811 when calculating the rate of interest a taxpayer is entitled for overpaying income tax, because § 143.811 is relevant for determining interest prior to January 1, 2003, while §§ 32.068 and 32.069 are relevant for determining interest on and after that date.

State v. Johnson[1]

Opinion handed down January 15, 2007
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that a capital defendant bears the burden of proving mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence. The dissent argues the burden is on the State since the statute is ambiguous.

Haggard v. Division of Employment Security[1]

Opinion handed down Nov. 20, 2007
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

Where employer challenged the Division of Employment Security in front of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, and where the Division of Employment Security was represented by a non-lawyer, the Division of Employment Security was in error but the error did not warrant reversal.

State v. Taylor[1]

Opinion handed down November 20, 2007
Link to Supreme Court Opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that venue is not an element of a criminal offense thereby abrogating cases that required venue to be proven by the State, and also held that venue objections must be raised prior to trial.