Case Summary for September 28, 2016

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for September 28, 2016

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Wednesday, September 28, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC95306
Tressa Stough, f/k/a Tressa Winkler v. Kirk Allen Bregg and Rhonda Bregg
Jefferson County

Note: This case was transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals by order dated September 23, 2016.

SC95377
State ex rel. Heartland Title Services Inc., f/k/a Heartland Title Company Inc., and James C. Day v. The Honorable Kevin D. Harrell
Jackson County
Challenge to dismissal of case for lack of venue
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95377.mp3
Heartland Title and James Day were represented during arguments by Paul Burnett, an attorney in St. Louis; Paul Hasty and his firm were represented by Mike Ward of Brown & James PC in St. Louis.

Heartland Title Services Inc. and James Day operated businesses outside Missouri. They hired Kansas attorney Paul Hasty Jr. and his law firm (collectively, Hasty) to represent them in a former employee’s personal bankruptcy case, in which they sought to become creditors. The bankruptcy proceeding was in Kansas. Heartland Title and Day subsequently sued Hasty in Jackson County, Missouri, for legal malpractice. Hasty argued venue was not appropriate in any Missouri county under the state’s general venue statute, section 508.010, RSMo. The circuit court dismissed the case for lack of venue. Heartland and Day now seek this Court’s writ prohibiting the circuit court from dismissing their case.

This case presents one primary question for this Court – whether venue was proper in Jackson County. Related to this are issues of whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to dismiss the case, whether its rationale for doing so violated the state constitution’s open courts provision by effectively foreclosing Heartland and Day’s ability to seek relief in Missouri and whether Heartland and Day are entitled to relief.

SC95377_Heartland_Title_and_James_Day_brief.pdf

SC95377_Hasty_brief.pdf

SC95377_Heartland_Title_and_James_Day_reply_brief.pdf

SC95303
Michael Tisius v. State of Missouri
Boone and Randolph counties
Claims of ineffective counsel in death penalty case
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95303.mp3
Tisius was represented during arguments by Bill Swift of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Richard Starnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Following a trial held in Boone County on a change of venue, Michael Tisius was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death for the June 2000 shooting deaths of two Randolph County deputies while Tisius was attempting to help another man escape from the county jail. During the post-conviction relief process, the circuit court granted Tisius a new penalty phase trial. Following the July 2010 penalty phase retrial, a jury recommended the death penalty, and the circuit court entered judgment accordingly. This Court affirmed that judgment. Tisius again sought post-conviction relief, which the circuit court denied. Tisius appeals.

This case presents numerous questions for this Court related to whether Tisius received effective assistance of counsel and whether any of his constitutional rights were violated as a result of his counsel’s representation of him. One question involves whether counsel’s flat fee arrangement created a conflict of interest and disincentive for counsel to act effectively and competently. Another involves whether counsel should have presented evidence, before the trial, that Tisius’ mental age should have barred the state from seeking the death penalty against him. Other questions relate to whether counsel should have presented certain evidence during the penalty phase retrial and whether the failure to do so prejudiced Tisius, such that there is a reasonable probability he would not have been sentenced to death had the evidence been presented. Specific questions involve whether counsel should have presented evidence to: explain why Tisius had a “boot shank” in his cell; rebut any suggestion from one jail guard’s testimony that Tisius was “bragging” instead of frightened; and to rebut another jail guard’s testimony about a gesture she believed Tisius had made. Other questions involve whether counsel should have presented certain evidence in mitigation of punishment, including whether counsel should have: presented portions of a doctor’s prior testimony that Tisius had diminished capacity and should not be sentenced to death; or called certain family members, friends or a teacher of Tisius to testify about Tisius’ living circumstances when he was younger and the consequences of him living in that environment. Additional issues involve whether counsel should have objected to certain closing arguments by the state and whether such arguments improperly injected passion, prejudice or arbitrariness into the jury’s sentencing decision. Further issues involve whether counsel should have offered alternative or modified jury instructions, argued against instructing the jury regarding one of the aggravating circumstances or included certain additional grounds in Tisius’ motion for a new trial.

SC95303_Tisius_brief.pdf

SC95303_State_brief.pdf

SC95303_Tisius_reply_brief.pdf

SC95332
In re: Noel F. Bisges
Cole County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95332.mp3
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by Sam Phillips of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in Jefferson City; Bisges was represented by Matt Koehler of Brown & James PC in St. Louis.

A woman hired Jefferson City attorney Noel Bisges to represent her in her bankruptcy case. She was discharged from bankruptcy in October 2010. In February 2011, a federal bankruptcy trustee reopened the client’s case. After talking with both the client and Bisges, the trustee determined that the client owned horses that had not been disclosed on her bankruptcy schedules, that Bisges advised his client not to disclose a transfer of $3,000 she made to her mother immediately before filing for bankruptcy and that Bisges allowed a colleague to file amended pleadings in his client’s case without requiring the client to sign them. The trustee subsequently filed a motion in the bankruptcy court against Bisges seeking disgorgement of fees and sanctions. Following a February 2013 trial, the bankruptcy court ordered Bisges to disgorge certain fees paid to him and to pay sanctions to his client’s bankruptcy. Bisges appealed to the federal district court, and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The case ultimately was appealed to theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s judgment. The district court subsequently issued an order of public censure against Bisges. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to discipline Bisges’ law license.

This case presents related questions for this Court – whether Bisges violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.

SC95332_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief.pdf

SC95332_Bisges_brief.pdf