Smith v. Pace[1]

Opinion handed down May 11, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Attorney Carl Smith petitioned the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, to quash a subpoena for a grand jury in Douglas County, accusing the prosecuting attorney and judge overseeing the grand jury of conspiring to conceal misconduct. Mr. Smith argued that his words were constitutionally protected speech, but a jury found him guilty of criminal contempt, and the judge sentenced him to 120 days in jail. The Supreme Court of Missouri issued a writ of habeas corpus to review the conviction. Ultimately, the court found that both the evidence and jury instructions issued in Mr. Smith’s trial were insufficient and discharged his sentence.

Feldhaus v. Missouri[1]

Opinion handed down April 20, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that sentencing definitions of the Missouri Revised Statutes § 577.023[2] did not violate the void for vagueness doctrine, and, as a result, the appellant’s constitutional rights of due process were not violated.The court reaffirmed that an appellant cannot raise constitutional claims once he has been counseled and voluntarily pleaded guilty.

In re Nessa [1]

Opinion handed down April 9, 2010.
Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (hereinafter BAP) held that an individual retirement account (hereinafter IRA), which a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor inherited from her father before filing for bankruptcy, was exempt from the bankruptcy estate under the Bankruptcy Code’s exemption for retirement funds. This decision is inconsistent with a Texas bankruptcy court, which had recently held that inherited IRAs do not fall within the federal exemption.

Rentschler v. Nixon[1]

Opinion handed down April 6, 2010, modified on court’s own motion May 11, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held (1) there is no constitutional right to early release from prison; (2) Mo. HB 974 (1990) deals with only one subject: “relating to the department of corrections”; (3) ex post facto considerations only apply to criminal matters; and (4) section 558.011 does not implicate a vested right nor create a new disability.

Hightower v. Myers[1]

Opinion handed down March 9, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the jurisdictional guidelines in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) were statutory in nature, and, as such, an Appellant cannot raise the jurisdictional challenge on appeal if the alleged error was not preserved at trial. The court held further that the trial court’s finding that Missouri was the proper forum under the UCCJA to litigate custody of the child was supported by the evidence. Finally, the court held that the trial court’s additional finding that the modification of the custody decree was proper due to changed circumstances was supported by substantial evidence.

City of Springfield v. Adolph Belt, Jr.[1]

Opinion handed down March 2, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the City of Springfield's adjudication process for tickets issued from automated red light cameras was void.[2]