Case Summary for September 3, 2013

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for September 3, 2013

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

1:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 3, 2013

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC92491
State of Missouri v. Jason Reece Peterson
Carroll County
Constitutional validity of statute

Listen to the oral argument:

The state was represented during arguments by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, and Peterson was represented by Scott C. Hamilton of Aull, Sherman, Worthington, Giorza, and Hamilton LLC in Lexington.

Jason Peterson was convicted January 20, 1998 of indecent behavior with a juvenile in the state of Louisiana. On June 17, 2011, Peterson was indicted for violating section 566.150, RSMo, being a sexual offender and loitering within 500 feet of a public park or swimming pool. Peterson filed a motion to dismiss the charge, claiming the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the prohibition in article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution prohibiting against enactment of retrospective laws. Section 566.150 was passed Aug. 29, 2010, after Peterson was convicted. The state argued the prohibition did not apply to criminal charges. The trial court found the prohibition did apply, and dismissed the charge. The state appeals.

The state argues the trial court erred in dismissing the felony indictment. It contends that section 566.150, RSMo, is not subject to the prohibition in article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits enactment of retrospective laws. The state asserts section 566.150 is a criminal statute and the constitutional prohibition is strictly applicable to civil rights and remedies.

Peterson responds the trial court correctly dismissed the felony indictment against him. He argues section 566.150 violates the constitutional prohibition on retrospective laws. Peterson contends the trial court properly found the prohibition applies to section 566.150. He asserts the statute created new obligations, duties and disabilities solely based on a past transaction making the statute unconstitutionally retrospective.

SC92382
State of Missouri v. Michael G. Wade
St. Louis County
Constitutional validity of statute

Listen to the oral argument:

Wade was represented during arguments by Gary E. Brotherton of Legal Writes LLC in Columbia, and the state was represented by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City.

Michael Wade pleaded guilty to charges of first-degree sexual abuse, second-degree child molestation and first-degree statutory sodomy November 25, 1996. On January 13, 2012, Wade was charged with violating section 566.150, RSMo, being a sexual offender and loitering within 500 feet of a public park or swimming pool. He filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court overruled. then convicted him. Wade was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment; the sentence was later suspended and he was given with five years probation. Wade appeals.

Wade argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss. Wade asserts section 566.150 was enacted after he was convicted and imposes new obligations, duties or disabilities based on matters already settled against him. He contends the trial court’s ruling violated his rights to due process and freedom from prosecution for under retrospective laws crimes.

The state responds the trial court correctly overruled Wade’s motion to dismiss. It argues the charges against Wade are not barred by the constitutional prohibition on enacting retrospective laws in article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. The state contends the prohibition on retrospective laws has been previously construed as limited to only civil rights and remedies. It asserts that extending the prohibition to criminal statutes is inconsistent with the intent of the constitutional drafters and case law. The state argues section 566.150 is not retrospective in its operation as applied to Wade even if article I, section 13 is read to apply to criminal statutes because the statute does not punish behavior which occurred prior to its effective date.

SC92229
State of Missouri v. Joey D. Honeycutt
Greene County
Constitutional validity of statute

Listen to the oral argument:

The state was represented during arguments by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, and Honeycutt was represented by Margaret M. Johnston of the public defender's office in Columbia.

Joel Honeycutt was convicted on Sept. 27, 2002, of possession of a controlled substance. He was then later charged with violating section 571.070, RSMo, by possessing a shotgun from November 2010 to March 2011 despite while being a convicted felon. Honeycutt filed a motion to dismiss and declare the statute unconstitutionally retrospective as applied to him under article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. Honeycutt argueding that the law was amended after he was convicted on the possession charge. of his charges. The trial court found the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Honeycutt. The state appeals.

The state argues the trial court erred in dismissing Honeycutt’s charges. It contends the provision in the Missouri Constitution article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits retrospective laws, does not apply to criminal charges. The state asserts the prohibition only applies to civil rights and remedies and should not be applied to the matter here.

Honeycutt responds the trial court correctly dismissed his charges. He argues this Court has previously construed the language of the provision to apply to crimes and punishments, as well as civil rights and remedies. Honeycutt contends the 2008 amendment to section 571.070, RSMo, impaired his right to own a firearm, created a new obligation, imposed a new duty and attached a new disability to him. He asserts his conviction occurred in 2002, which makes section 571.070 unconstitutionally retrospective as applied to him.

SC93170
State of Missouri v. Arthel Harris
St. Louis city
Constitutional validity of statute

Listen to the oral argument:

The state was represented during arguments by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, and Harris was represented by Jerry Miller, a special public defender from Belleville, IL.

On Dec. 27, 2001, Arthel Harris was convicted of distributing, delivering or manufacturing a controlled substance. Harris was then later charged with violating section 571.070, RSMo, which makes it illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. He filed a motion to quash the charges. The trial court granted the motion to quash and dismissed the charge without leave to re-file finding the statute to be an ex post facto law as applied to Harris in violation of article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution constituted an ex post facto violation. The state appeals.

The state argues the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against Harris. It contends section 571.070 is not an ex post facto (having retroactive force) law as applied to Harris. The state asserts the statute sought to prohibit and punish his Harris’s possession of a firearm after the effective date of the statute which made the behavior illegal. It argues the trial court also failed to consider similar cases raised under the federal law against prohibitions, which is construed consistently with the Missouri law.

Harris responds the trial court correctly dismissed the charge against him. He argues section 571.070, as applied to him, constitutes a prohibited ex post facto law, which is prohibited by article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution.

SC92786
State of Missouri v. Edwin Carey
Greene County
Constitutionality of statute

Listen to the oral argument:

The state was represented during arguments by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, and Carey was represented by S. Dean Price Jr., a private practitioner from Springfield.

Edwin Carey was convicted of second-degree statutory rape June 18, 1997. He was charged with information filed that July 3, in 2010 he violated with violating section 566.150, RSMo, by being a convicted sex offender within 500 feet of a park or playground. Carey filed a motion to dismiss and declare section 566.150 unconstitutional as applied to him, which the trail court granted. The trial court granted Carey’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the charges with leave to refile. The state appeals.

The state argues the trial court erred in granting Carey’s motion to dismiss dismissing the information filed against Carey. It contends section 566.150 is not subject to the article I, section 13 prohibition against retrospective laws in the Missouri Constitution. The state asserts the statute is a criminal statute and the prohibition against retrospective laws applies only to civil rights and remedies.

Carey responds that the trial court correctly granted his motion to dismiss dismissed the information filed against him. He argues section 566.150 violates the prohibition on retrospective laws in article I, section 13, and that Carey contends the prohibition applies to crimes and punishments as well as civil rights and remedies. Carey contends the plain language of article I, section 13 prohibits a law that creates new obligations, duties and attaches new disabilities. He asserts his violation of section 566.150 was based solely on his 1997 conviction and therefore, the statute is unconstitutionally retrospective as applied to him.