Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree attempted rape and other offenses, holding that the circuit court committed no error regarding the claims Defendant asserted on appeal.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree attempted rape, second-degree domestic assault, first-degree domestic assault, armed criminal action, and victim tampering. On appeal, Defendant raised five points challenging the circuit court's rulings admitting or excluding certain evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err in excluding the challenged evidence View "State v. Loper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of robbery in the first degree, holding that the circuit court erred in excluding expert witness testimony regarding various factors that can impact the reliability of eyewitness identification.The case against Defendant was largely based on the identification provided by the victim at a "show up" that occurred minutes after the crime occurred. After the state rested its case, Defendant's counsel sought to have an expert witness testify about he factors that can impact the reliability of eyewitness identifications generally. The trial court excluded the expert testimony. On appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred in excluding the testimony. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the exclusion of the expert testimony deprived Defendant of his opportunity to present expert evidence about the most important issue the jury had to decide - whether the victim's identification of Defendant was mistaken; and (2) the likelihood that the expert testimony would have altered the outcome was too high to affirm Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court entering partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of liability, holding that the circuit court did not err in entering summary judgment on the issue of liability in Plaintiff's favor.After he mobile home caught on fire Plaintiff sued several defendants, including Mehrdad Fotoohighiam, alleging that Fotoohighiam and the other defendants conspired to set her home on fire, causing her mental and physical harm and property damage. The circuit court entered partial summary judgment as to liability in Plaintiff's favor. After a jury trial on the issue of damages only the jury returned a verdict of $250,000 in actual damages and $2,500,000 in punitive damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the uncontroverted material facts established Plaintiff's right to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. View "Green v. Fotoohighiam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court against Defendant for one count of class C felony stealing and two counts of class A misdemeanor stealing, holding that absent proof of value, the offense submitted was a class D misdemeanor, not a class A misdemeanor, and that the circuit court should have entered judgment against Defendant for a class D felony rather than a class C felony.The jury instructions in this case required the jury to find Defendant retained the two victims' personal items without their consent and with the purpose of withholding this property from them. At trial, the State did not present evidence of the value of the stolen items of personal property. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court properly entered judgment for one count of class C felony and two counts of class A misdemeanor stealing. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that the circuit court should have entered judgment for one count of class D felony stealing and two counts of class D misdemeanor stealing. View "State v. Knox" on Justia 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. View "State ex rel. Jonas v. Minor" on Justia 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. View "State v. Brandolese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the motion court overruling Appellant's pro se Rule 29.15 postconviction motion seeking to vacate his felony statutory sodomy conviction under Mo. Rev. Stat. 566.062, holding that there was no final judgment in the underlying criminal case, and therefore, Appellant's postconviction relief motion was premature.In his motion for postconviction relief, Appellant argued that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court overruled the motion on the merits. Appellant appealed, arguing that his postconviction relief motion was premature because the trial court failed to carry out the Supreme Court's mandate issued in his direct appeal, and therefore, his judgment of conviction was not yet final. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the trial court failure strictly to comply with the Court's mandate; and (2) therefore, the judgment of condition in Appellant's criminal case was not yet a final judgment that triggers the running of the time period in which he can file a Rule 29.15 motion, and the Rule 29.15 motion was premature. View "Lemasters v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court overruling Appellant's Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief from the sentences imposed on her for class C felony stealing under Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.030, holding that Appellant's crimes were class A misdemeanors under State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), and Appellant should have been sentenced accordingly.Appellant's judgment of conviction was not yet final when the Supreme Court decided Bazell, which held that stealing in violation of section 570.030 is a class A misdemeanor that cannot be enhanced to a class C felony. After Bazell was decided, Appellant's two five-year sentences were imposed. Appellant argued that she was entitled to have Bazell applied to her sentencing and that the sentences imposed exceeded the sentences authorized by law. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) Appellant was entitled to have Bazell applied to her sentencing; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred in entering judgments of conviction against Appellant and sentencing her as if her crimes were class C felonies. View "Hamilton v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Appellant for class C felony stealing under Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.030 because State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), held that stealing in violation of section 570.030 is a class A misdemeanor that cannot be enhanced to a felony.Appellant pleaded guilty to stealing in violation of section 570.030. Before Appellant's sentencing occurred Bazell was decided. Bazell held that stealing under section 570.030.1 was a class A misdemeanor that could not be enhanced to a class C felony. The circuit court subsequently sentenced Appellant to seven years for a class C felony, despite Appellant's objection that Bazell required he be sentenced for a class A misdemeanor. In his direct appeal, Appellant argued that he received an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) Appellant did not waive his claim that he received an excessive sentence; and (2) the circuit court erred in sentencing Appellant for a class C felony. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner's claims of actual innocence did not entitle him to relief and that Petitioner neither demonstrated the "substantial threshold showing of insanity" nor that he was incompetent under Mo. Rev. Stat. 552.060.Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. After the Supreme Court issued its order setting Petitioner's execution date, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioner failed to prove the substantial threshold showing of insanity required by Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) and Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986); (2) Petitioner failed to prove that he is incompetent under section 552.060; and (3) Petitioner failed to offer sufficient evidence to show actual innocence, either as a gateway or as a freestanding claim. View "State ex rel. Barton v. Stange" on Justia Law