The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments.  Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.


SC96016
State of Missouri v. Larry Clay
Jackson County
Challenge to jury instructions, evidence of uncharged crimes in murder case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96016.mp3
Clay was represented during arguments by Clayton E. Gillette of Gillette Law Office LLC in Kansas City; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

One night in March 2013, Larry Clay was hanging out and drinking alcohol with his mother’s fiancé, Joel White, and two other men in the basement of Clay’s home. An altercation broke out between Clay and White, and Clay used a knife to escape. Upstairs, Clay retrieved a gun and demanded the other men leave his home. Outside, he told them to leave his property. Accounts differ as to exactly what happened next, but ultimately another altercation ensued in Clay’s driveway, and Clay shot White, killing him. The state charged Clay with second-degree murder and armed criminal action. During trial, the state presented evidence of the use of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia, as well as the presence of brass knuckles, at Clay’s home, although Clay was not charged with either marijuana-related crimes or the illegal possession of brass knuckles. Clay asked the circuit court to give the jury certain self-defense instructions. The circuit court instead used the state’s proffered instructions and also disallowed Clay from arguing he did not have a duty to retreat. The jury found Clay guilty of second-degree murder and armed criminal action. The circuit court entered judgment accordingly and sentenced him to concurrent terms totaling 25 years in prison. Clay appeals.

This case raises a number of questions for the Court. One involves whether the circuit court properly instructed the jury regarding the law of self-defense and, if not, whether manifest injustice resulted requiring a new trial. Related issues involve whether a defendant can be an initial aggressor but then withdraw and then defend himself, whether the approved instruction requires inclusion of the withdrawal language, and whether a defendant alleging self-defense has a duty to retreat. Another question involves whether the circuit court should have excluded evidence of uncharged marijuana-related crimes and brass knuckles as well as whether such evidence prejudiced Clay by portraying him as a drug user or lawbreaker. An additional question involves whether the circuit court should have permitted Clay to argue he lawfully was on his property and, therefore, had the right to exercise self-defense without first considering retreat. A further question involves whether the circuit court, in addition to instructing the jury regarding second-degree murder, should have instructed the jury regarding the nested lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter.

SC96016_Clay_brief
SC96016_State_brief
SC96016_Clay_reply_brief



SC96126
Armstrong-Trotwood LLC, Armstrong-Brittany LLC, Armstrong-Arbor Village LLC, Robert S. Rothschild Jr., Susan H. Rothschild, Geiger Real Estate Inc., and Josh & Elaine LLC v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, Bruce E. Davis, Randy B. Holman, Victor Callahan, St. Louis County and Jake Zimmerman
St. Louis County
Whether property owners stated a claim on which relief can be granted in tax assessment challenge
Listen to the oral argument: SC96126.mp3
The property owners were represented during arguments by Bruce A. Morrison of The Morrison Law Firm in St. Louis; the state tax commission was represented by Emily A. Dodge of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Owners of parcels of real property in St. Louis County located within certain multicounty taxing jurisdictions challenged the county’s tax assessments of their properties. Specifically, they alleged the assessments were discriminatory, nonuniform and unfair compared with similar properties in Franklin and Jefferson counties but located within the same multicounty taxing jurisdictions. The county’s board of equalization sustained the assessor’s valuation of the properties, and the property owners appealed to the state tax commission. The commission dismissed their appeals, and the property owners sought relief in the circuit court by filing suit against the commission and its members as well as the county and its assessor. The circuit court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entered judgment in favor of the commission and county. The property owners appeal.

This case presents several questions for the Court involving whether the property owners stated claims on which relief can be granted. One is whether the property owners stated a claim for judicial review of a contested case by alleging they were aggrieved by the commission’s dismissal of their appeals. A related issue is whether the commission should have equalized the taxes assessed against the owners’ properties within the territorial limits of the authorities levying the tax. Another question is whether the property owners stated a claim for judicial review of a noncontested case by alleging the commission’s action in performing the intercounty equalization constitutes a decision of an administrative body that otherwise is not subject to review. An additional question is whether the property owners stated a claim for a declaratory judgment by alleging the commission’s actions created a justiciable controversy between the parties as to whether the assessments of their properties are discriminatory or uniform.

SC96126_property_owners_brief_filed_in_ED
SC96126_State_Tax_Commission_brief_filed_in_ED
SC96126_St._Louis_County_and_county_assessor_brief_filed_in_ED
SC96126_property_owners_reply_brief_filed_in_ED



SC95849
In re: James C. Robinson
St. Louis
Attorney discipline

SC95850
In re: Elbert A. Walton Jr.
St. Louis
Attorney discipline

These cases arise out of intertwined facts and are summarized together, although they were argued separately.
 
Listen to the oral argument in SC95849: SC95849.mp3
Alan D. Pratzel, the chief disciplinary counsel in Jefferson City, represented his office during arguments; Robinson was represented was represented by Bernard Edwards, an attorney in St. Louis.

Listen to the oral argument in SC95850: SC95850.mp3
Alan D. Pratzel, the chief disciplinary counsel in Jefferson City, represented his office during arguments; Walton was represented was represented by Bernard Edwards, an attorney in St. Louis.

James Robinson is a St. Louis attorney specializing in bankruptcy. He does business as Critique Legal Service LLC and as Critique Services (collectively, Critique). After one of Robinson’s clients filed an action in bankruptcy court seeking return of the fee she had paid him, St. Louis attorney Elbert Walton Jr. entered his appearance on behalf of Robinson and Critique. After action by the bankruptcy court, the chief disciplinary counsel seeks reciprocal discipline in this Court of Robinson’s and Walton’s law licenses. Robinson and Walton disagree with all the facts presented by the chief disciplinary counsel, who alleges:

In 2010, a woman hired Robinson, doing business as Critique, to represent her in a bankruptcy proceeding. She was discharged from bankruptcy in November 2011 but subsequently learned Critique had not filed paperwork she had signed to reaffirm her debt financing her vehicle. She asked Robinson to return her file and the fee she had paid him. He told her the charge for her file was a $100 office fee plus $5 per page in copying fees. The woman ultimately surrendered her vehicle to the lender, which garnished her wages and bank accounts for what she still owed. In an April 2013 pleading the woman filed pro se in the bankruptcy court, she alleged Critique staff solicited her to include false information regarding her place of residence and the existence of fictitious dependents in her bankruptcy petition paperwork; did not return telephone calls; lost pay stubs and documentation necessary for her to participate in a mandatory bankruptcy class; and failed to file the paperwork reaffirming her debt financing her vehicle, which she ultimately lost as a result. The bankruptcy court construed the pleading as a motion to disgorge attorney fees (to require return of the attorney fees paid in the case).

In May 2013, the day before a scheduled hearing on the motion, Walton entered his appearance on behalf of Robinson and Critique and filed an untimely response to the woman’s motion. The bankruptcy court continued the hearing, and the woman ultimately retained counsel, who sought discovery from Robinson. At a September 2013 status conference, the bankruptcy court found the discovery responses so far were “grossly insufficient.” The next month, the bankruptcy court determined the discovery responses had not been provided and there was no intention to produce them and ordered Robinson to pay sanctions of $1,000 per day of noncompliance. In June 2014, the bankruptcy court found Robinson in contempt, struck his claims and defenses, and ordered him to pay $30,000 in accrued monetary sanctions and refund to the woman the $495 in fees she had paid him. The bankruptcy court ordered Walton to be jointly and severally liable for the $30,000 in sanctions and imposed $19,720 in additional sanctions against Robinson and Walton for attorney fees the woman incurred in litigating the discovery dispute. The bankruptcy court further sanctioned Robinson and Walton by suspending them from practice before the bankruptcy court for one year. It then referred its decision to the chief disciplinary counsel’s office.

Robinson and Walton allege all the sanctions have been satisfied. The federal district court subsequently commenced disciplinary actions against both attorneys but stayed those proceedings pending resolution of any disciplinary cases in this Court.

The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to impose reciprocal discipline against both attorneys by suspending Robinson’s and Walton’s law licenses with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year. The chief disciplinary counsel alleges Robinson and Walton both violated certain rules of professional responsibility and that each independently violated additional rules of professional responsibility. Robinson and Walton deny these allegations. They allege the chief disciplinary counsel should have conducted an independent investigation and given them hearings. They further allege that, because the bankruptcy court does not license attorneys, it also cannot discipline attorneys. The parties dispute, therefore, whether the bankruptcy court’s order of sanctions constituted either a judgment that the attorneys were guilty of professional misconduct or discipline sufficient to form the basis for reciprocal discipline in this Court.

These cases present one primary question for this Court: whether either Robinson or Walton violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.


Briefs in Robinson's case:

SC95849_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC95849_Robinson_amended_brief
SC95849_Chief_Disicplinary_Counsel_reply_brief


Briefs in Walton's case

SC95850_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC95850_Walton_amended_brief
SC95850_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_reply_brief


Supreme Court - Dockets