State v. Bateman[1]

Opinion handed down August 3, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of deliberation when a defendant had adequate opportunity to terminate the confrontation, previously threatened the deceased, and brought a deadly weapon to the scene of the crime. Additionally, the court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defense’s Batson challenge when it found that the prosecutor’s strike of an African-American juror during voir dire was not racially motivated.

School District of Kansas City v. State[1]

Opinion issued August 3, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

In 2005, the Missouri legislature permitted charter schools to become local education agencies within public school districts. School District of Kansas City has a bold impact on state funding to public schools but, because of the law’s language, only affected the Kansas City Missouri School District (“KCMSD”). The KCMSD and three Missouri taxpayers brought suit against the state, arguing that the law violated the Missouri Constitution by allowing transfer of funds from KCMSD to the Kansas City charter schools and by creating an unfunded mandate for school districts to uphold. After a non-jury trial, the circuit court of Cole County rejected KCMSD’s claims and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

State ex rel. Garcia v. Goldman [1]

Opinion handed down July 16, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a seven-year period between when the defendant was indicted and when he was arrested for first degree assault violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, reasoning that too many witnesses and too many years had slipped away for the state to show that the defense was unimpaired.

Vaca v. Missouri[1]

Opinion handed down June 15, 2010
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a criminal appellant’s defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the sentencing phase of a trial when he failed to consider calling a mental health expert to testify even though the counsel was apprised of the jury’s interest in appellant’s mental condition during the guilt phase. The court additionally held that the defense strategy of linking the defendant to a fourth robbery for which he had not been charged was reasonable, and, therefore, defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective on this point. The court determined that appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief should have been granted in part. Ultimately the judgment was upheld in part, remanded in part, and reversed in part.

Anderson v. Durham D & M, L.L.C.[1]

Opinion handed down May 26, 2010
Link to Eighth Circuit Opinion

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling of a United States Court for the Western District of Missouri, granting summary judgment for a bus company accused of maintaining a racially hostile work environment and of discriminating against an employee because of his age and race.

Hayes v. Price[1]

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

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the trial court erred in submitting a comparable fault instruction because the defendant in this motor vehicle accident suit did not present evidence that the plaintiff was able to take evasive measures to avoid the accident. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest. The plaintiff’s offer of settlement did not comply with section 408.040.21 because it included a demand for production of documents and statements from third parties.