State v. Williams[1]

Opinion handed down May 25, 2010.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri once again reinforced the standard that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense when he may be acquitted of a more serious offense and convicted on the lesser offense. Further, the court reemphasized that affirmative evidence is not required on the defendant’s part for such an instruction and that the jury may make any inferences from the evidence, even if that means believing some parts and disbelieving other parts of the evidence presented by either side.

Public Water Supply District No. 3 of Laclede County v. City of Lebanon [1]

--> Opinion handed down May 14, 2010
Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals examined 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) which protects rural districts’ utilities financed by a federal loan from competition with surrounding municipalities by not allowing municipalities to extend service to coverage within the area covered by the district. The Eighth Circuit held that the City of Lebanon, Missouri did not violate § 1926 by continuing to provide sewer and water services to pre-existing customers within the District’s boundaries. The court limited the services protected under § 1926(b) to those that are financed by the federal loan. Additionally, the court held that even though a developer or customer may not want to receive services from a rural district, if those services are available at a reasonable cost, the rural district is entitled to the customers.

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.