Case Summary for September 1, 2015

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for September 1, 2015

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. Tuesday, September 1, 2015
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC94615
Natalie DePriest v. State of Missouri
St. Francois County

This case was removed from the oral argument docket and transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals by order dated August 21, 2015.

SC94658
State of Missouri v. Chadwick Leland Walter
Clay and Saline counties
Challenge to execution of search warrant, conviction for attempted drug manufacture
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94658.mp3
Walter was represented during arguments by Damien de Loyola of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by P. Benjamin Cox of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Upon application by a highway patrol trooper, the Saline County circuit court issued a search warrant in August 2011 for Walter’s residence. The warrant directed that officers make a complete and accurate inventory of items taken “in the presence of the person from whose possession the same is taken, if that be possible” and giving that person a receipt for the property taken. When the trooper and other officers executed the search, Walter and his female co-defendant were home. Both were arrested immediately and transported to the county sheriff’s department before the search was conducted. The trial was held in Clay County. Before trial, Walter moved to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing the officers disregarded the warrant’s terms. After a hearing, the circuit court overruled Walter’s motions. During his trial, Walter raised a continuing objection to admission of this evidence. The jury found Walter guilty of one count each of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine and maintaining a public nuisance. The court sentenced him, as a prior and persistent drug offender, to concurrent prison terms of 15 years for the attempted manufacture conviction and eight years for the nuisance conviction. Walter appeals.

The appeal presents several questions for the Court. The first is whether, during closing arguments, the prosecutor committed misconduct violating Walter’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by presenting to the jury an enlarged color photograph of Walter wearing an orange prison uniform with the word “guilty” superimposed over the photograph in large red letters. The second is whether the state’s evidence of his intent to manufacture methamphetamine (or his knowledge of how to do so) was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt on both counts. The third is whether the officers who executed the search warrant violated his constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial, and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by refusing allow him to be present during the search of his residence and the inventory of his belongings, given the warrant’s requirement that they do so if possible. The fourth is whether admission of the trooper’s testimony about statements another man made during a telephone call the man allegedly received from Walter violated Walter’s constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial and to confront adverse witnesses.

SC94658_Walter_brief.pdf

SC94658_State_brief.pdf

SC94658_Walter_reply_brief.pdf

SC94840
Kristin Nicole Stiers v. Director of Revenue
St. Charles County
Challenge to reinstatement of driver’s license following arrest for driving while intoxicated
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94840.mp3
The director was represented during arguments by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City; Stiers was represented by Robert Adler, an attorney in St. Louis.

A Lake St. Louis police officer stopped a vehicle in July 2013 after he observed it drifting in and out of lanes on the interstate. The officer identified the driver as Kristin Stiers. He detected that her breath had the odor of alcohol, that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, that her eyelids were droopy and that her speech was slurred. She agreed to take field sobriety tests and a portable breath test, which was positive for the presence of alcohol. The officer arrested Stiers for driving while intoxicated and took her to the police department, where he administered a breath test that showed her blood-alcohol content was 0.172 percent. Following a November 2013 administrative hearing, the director of revenue revoked Stiers’ driver’s license. She sought a trial de novo (to consider the facts anew) in the circuit court. During the April 2014 trial, the court admitted certain documents into evidence, including (over her objection) records relating to her arrest and the administration of the breath test as well as the department of health and senior services’ regulations relating to the verification and calibration of the breath analyzer used to test Stiers. Following the trial, both sides submitted briefs addressing the admissibility of the breath test results and the regulation regarding maintenance of breath analyzers. In its judgment, the court concluded the director failed to present sufficient credible evidence of compliance with the regulation in effect at the time Stiers was tested and, therefore, sustained Stiers’ objection to admission of the breath test results. The court also found the director failed to provide sufficient credible evidence that Stiers drove with a blood-alcohol concentration at or above 0.08 percent. The court ordered the director to remove the administrative revocation from Stiers’ driving record and to reinstate her driving privileges. The director appeals.

The appeal presents two questions for the Court. One is whether the breath analyzer used to administer Stiers’ breath test had been verified and calibrated properly according to the department’s regulations. The second is whether the trial court applied the correct version of the department’s regulation governing the verification and calibration of breath test devices.

SC94840_director_of_revenue_brief.pdf

SC94840_Stiers_brief.pdf

SC94840_Director_of_Revenue_reply_brief.pdf

SC94899
In re: James A. Burt
Christian County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94899.mp3
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by special representative Kevin Rapp, an attorney in Springfield; Burt did not argue. Judge Gary Oxenhandler, a circuit judge in the 13th Judicial Circuit (Boone and Callaway counties), sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge Mary R. Russell.

In November 2013, a bank in Ozark notified the chief disciplinary counsel – pursuant to Rule 4-1.15, governing attorney trust accounts – that Ozark attorney James Burt had sought a payment from his trust account that resulted in insufficient funds. Over the next three months, the bank sent six additional notices to the chief disciplinary counsel that Burt’s trust account was overdrawn. During the chief disciplinary counsel’s investigation, Burt provided bank statements for his trust account and explained the overdrafts occurred because he had paid ordinary expenses and personal bills out of his trust account and that, because he had run out of operating account checks, he had deposited personal funds into the trust account for the purpose of paying his bills. He also indicated he intended to close his law practice at the end of December 2013. The chief disciplinary counsel continued to receive overdraft notices from the bank regarding Burt’s trust account and ultimately subpoenaed certain documentation from the bank. In May 2014, the chief disciplinary counsel initiated disciplinary proceedings against Burt. Following a December 2014 hearing, a majority of the regional disciplinary hearing panel found that Burt had violated Rule 4-1.15 and recommended that he be reprimanded; the third member of the panel dissented, recommending that Burt be admonished. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s decision and now asks this Court to suspend Burt’s law license, to stay the suspension and to place Burt on probation for at least two years.

The case presents two issues to the Court. One is whether Burt violated Rule 4-1.15 by depositing personal funds into his trust account, using his trust account to pay personal expenses, commingling personal and client funds in his trust account, failing to keep adequate trust account records and making withdrawals from his trust account made out to “cash.” The other is whether discipline is warranted and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.

SC94899_chief_disciplinary_counsel_brief.pdf (Burt did not file a brief.)