Latest 5 Cases: State ex rel. Universal Credit Acceptance, Inc. v. Honorable Reno (Civil Procedure), State ex rel. Jonas v. Minor (Criminal Law), ...

Should Acquittals Require Unanimity?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb considers the policy question of whether, since the Constitution requires jury unanimity to convict a defendant of a serious crime, states should require a unanimous verdict to acquit a defendant, as well. Colb describes the reasons behind jury unanimity convictions and assesses whether they apply similarly to acquittals.

Read More

State ex rel. Universal Credit Acceptance, Inc. v. Honorable Reno

Docket: SC97872

Opinion Date: June 30, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Consumer Law

The Supreme Court made permanent its preliminary writ of mandamus compelling the circuit court to transfer the underlying lawsuit to St. Charles County, holding that the circuit court had no authority to change venue and transfer the case from St. Charles County to St. Louis County. Universal Credit Acceptance, Inc. (UCA) filed the underlying lawsuit in St. Charles County seeking to recover a judgment arising from Renwick Ware's alleged default on a retail sales installment contract. After the associate circuit division sustained Ware's application for change of judge, Ware filed a motion to change the venue to St. Louis County. The circuit court sustained the motion and transferred the case to St. Louis County. UCA filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that, pursuant to Rule 51.06(a), Ware waived the right to file a motion to change venue because the motion was not consolidated with his application for change of judge. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary writ that it made permanent, holding that Ware's motion to change venue was improper under Rule 51.06(a), and therefore, UCA demonstrated a clear and unequivocal right to have the case retransferred to St. Charles County.

State ex rel. Jonas v. Minor

Docket: SC97674

Opinion Date: June 30, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner should have been discharged from probation before the State attempted to revoke probation and the circuit court suspended and revoked his probation. In his petition, Petitioner alleged that his due process rights were violated when, rather than discharging him from probation, the circuit court revoked his probation and ordered his sentence executed despite his having sufficient earned compliance credits (ECCs) and having paid restitution in full. The Supreme Court granted habeas relief and ordered that Petitioner be discharged from the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections, holding that the circuit court no longer had authority to revoke Petitioner's probation after he paid restitution because the combination of his time served on probation and accrued ECCs would have entitled him to discharge under Mo. Rev. Stat. 217.703.7.

State v. Brandolese

Docket: SC97697

Opinion Date: June 30, 2020

Judge: Powell

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of second-degree domestic assault and armed criminal action, holding that none of Defendant's allegations of error entitled Defendant to relief. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court's failure to strike for cause a juror because she was the sister of an assistant prosecuting attorney who participated in Defendant's case did not result in manifest injustice; (2) the circuit court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury on self-defense; (3) the circuit court's response to the jury's question regarding the mental state for domestic assault did not warrant relief under plain error review; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a defense witness about the victim's "reputation" for violence; and (5) Defendant was not entitled to relief due to the circuit court overruling his objection to certain testimony.

Planned Parenthood of St. Louis Region v. Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services

Docket: SC98020

Opinion Date: June 30, 2020

Judge: Paul C. Wilson

Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court declaring section 11.800 of House Bill No. 2011 (HB2011) invalid, holding that there was a direct conflict between the language of Mo. Rev. Stat. 208.153.2 and 208.152.1(6), (12) requiring the MO HealthNet Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services to pay its authorized providers for covered physicians' services and family planning provided to Medicaid-eligible individuals and the language of section 11.800 prohibiting MO HealthNet from doing so. Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood (Planned Parenthood) was an authorized provider of physicians' services and family planning because it had an agreement with MO HealthNet to do so. MO HealthNet informed Planned Parenthood that it could not reimburse Planned Parenthood for those services during the fiscal year 2019 due to section 11.800, which stated that "No funds shall be expended to any abortion facility...." The circuit court concluded that section 11.800 of HB2011 violated Mo. Const. Art. III, 23 because it amended substantive law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 11.800 was invalid because article III, section 23 prohibits using an appropriation bill to amend a substantive statute; and (2) the circuit court properly severed that provision from the remainder of HB2011.

Laughlin v. Perry

Docket: SC98012

Opinion Date: June 30, 2020

Judge: George W. Draper, III

Areas of Law: Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court affirming a jury's verdict in favor of Respondent on his legal malpractice claim, holding that public defenders are entitled to official immunity. Appellants were public defenders who were assigned to represent Respondent at his criminal trial. Appellant was found guilty. The Supreme Court later issued a writ of habeas corpus concluding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Respondent. Respondent sued Appellants alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary obligation for their failure to assert the jurisdictional challenge during their representation of him. The jury returned a verdict in Respondent's favor. Appellants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict alleging that they were shielded from liability due to official immunity. The circuit court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that public defenders have official immunity because they are public employees whose official statutory duties concern the performance of discretionary acts.