Case Summary for September 9, 2015

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for September 9, 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. Wednesday, September 9, 2015
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC94951
Gerald Geier and Stop Now! v. Missouri Ethics Commission, et al.
Jackson County
Constitutional validity of certain campaign finance laws; challenge to finding of violation
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94951.mp3
Geier and the political action committee were represented during arguments by Hugh A. Eastwood, an attorney in St. Louis; the ethics commission was represented by Solicitor General James R. Layton of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Gerald Geier and other individuals formed a political action committee in 1991 called “Stop Now!” to oppose Kansas City-area ballot initiatives that would raise taxes. Geier was the committee’s treasurer. By 2002, the committee had a small bank balance but had ceased receiving contributions and spending funds. Routine bank fees depleted the account to zero by 2006, and the bank closed the account. For several years thereafter and until sometime in 2010, the committee filed reports showing it had no money and was engaging in no activity. In April 2011, the state ethics commission notified Geier it had not received the quarterly report and stated that the committee was subject to fines and daily late fees. In September 2011, the ethics commission notified Geier it was investigating him for failure to file reports for the political action committee. In January 2012, Geier filed the quarterly reports for April, July and October 2011 and formally terminated the political action committee. In April 2012, the ethics commission brought an enforcement action against the political action committee and Geier (collectively, the committee) for failing to file certain required reports from October 2010 through June 2011 and ultimately sought a fine of $1,000. Following a December 2012 hearing that was closed to the public pursuant to state statute over the committee’s objection, the ethics commission found the committee unknowingly had violated certain campaign finance statutes. After the administrative hearing commission affirmed the ethics commission’s decision, the committee sought judicial review in the circuit court and also brought a federal civil rights claim against the ethics commission under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a hearing) in favor of the ethics commission. The political action committee appeals.

This appeal raises several questions for the Court. One is whether the campaign finance reporting statutes violate the First Amendment to the federal constitution. A related question is whether the committee’s claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief are ripe (sufficiently developed) for adjudication. Another related question is whether the state has a sufficient interest in campaign finance disclosure by a committee that has been inactive for years to justify finding the committee violated state campaign finance laws. Another is whether the closed-door hearing required by section 105.961.3, RSMo, violates federal constitutional provisions requiring open courts. Another question is whether the committee should have been allowed to proceed to a trial on its federal civil rights claims against the ethics commission. A fourth question is whether state law requires a treasurer to be responsible in his personal capacity for filing reports on behalf of a committee such that the ethics commission could have found such a violation against Geier.

SC94951_Geier_et_al_brief_filed_in_WD.pdf

SC94951_ethics_commission_brief_filed_in_WD.pdf

SC94951_Geier_et_al_reply_brief_filed_in_WD.pdf

SC95088
William David Hill v. Oliver "Glenn" Boyer, Sheriff of Jefferson County, Missouri
Jefferson County

This case was removed from the oral argument docket for rescheduling later by order dated August 26, 2015.

SC94668
State of Missouri v. Dennis E. Meacham
Jefferson County
Constitutional validity of criminal nonsupport statute
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94668.mp3
The state was represented during arguments by Gregory L. Barnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City; Meacham was represented by Amy M. Bartholow of the public defender’s office in Columbia.

The state charged Dennis Meacham with felony nonsupport in violation of section 568.040, RSMo, alleging he knowingly failed to provide for his three minor children or make his child support payments as ordered by the Franklin County circuit court. The information was supported by a probable cause statement sworn to by Meacham’s ex-wife in April 2013. Meacham filed a motion to dismiss the information and to declare section 568.040 unconstitutional. The circuit court granted his motion in November 2014, finding subsections 1, 3 and 4 of section 568.040 unconstitutional. Specifically, the circuit court held that a 2011 amendment to the statute – which removed “without good cause” as an element of the offense under subsection 1 but continued to provide that inability to provide support for good cause was an affirmative defense under subsection 3 – unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to the defendant in violation of the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions. The court also found a 2012 amendment to the statute unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant and failed to require the state to prove criminal intent. The state appeals.

This appeal raises one primary question for the Court: whether the statute violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions by shifting the burden of proof as to the intent element of the offense, creating a presumption that the defendant has the ability to provide adequate support, or whether the statute merely provides that the burden to prove an affirmative defense rests on the defendant, which is constitutionally permissible.

SC94668_State_brief.pdf

SC94668_Meacham_brief.pdf

SC94909
In re: Tommie A. Harsley III
St. Louis County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94909.mp3
The chief disciplinary counsel, Alan D. Pratzel, of Jefferson City, represented his office; Harsley was represented by Alan S. Mandel of Mandel & Mandel LLP in St. Louis.

As required by Rule 4-1.15, a bank notified the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in July 2013 and March 2014 that the client trust account of St. Louis County-area attorney Tommie Harsley III was overdrawn. The chief disciplinary counsel subpoenaed bank records from August 2012 through April 2014 and conducted an audit of Harsley’s trust account. As a result of the audit findings, the chief disciplinary counsel initiated disciplinary proceedings against Harsley in October 2014. Harsley and the chief disciplinary counsel entered into a joint stipulation of facts, joint conclusion of law and joint sanction recommendation just before a February 2015 hearing. In March 2015, the disciplinary hearing panel accepted the joint stipulation, finding Harsley had violated Rule 4-1.3 by failing to deliver client funds promptly to clients or third parties and Rule 4-1.15 by commingling personal and client funds in his trust account, failing to safeguard his clients’ property appropriately, failing to keep complete records of the trust account, failing to reconcile the trust account promptly, and depositing his own funds into the trust account to cover bank service charges. The panel concurred with the joint stipulation in recommending that Harsley’s law license be suspended with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least 12 months, that the suspension be stayed and that Harsley be placed on probation for 24 months. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to discipline Harsley’s license accordingly.

This case raises two questions for the Court: whether Harsley’s actions with regard to his trust account violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.

SC94909_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_Brief.pdf

SC94909_Harsley_Brief.pdf