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.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9:30 a.m. Tuesday, April 9, 2019
SC97412
Sally Boland, Sherri Lynn Harper, David Gann, Jennirae Littrell and Helen Pittman v. Saint Luke's Health System, Saint Luke's Hospital of Chillicothe and Community Health Group
Jackson County
Whether fraud claims are barred by statute of limitations or res judicata
Listen to the oral argument: SC97412 MP3 file
The survivors were represented during arguments by Michael W. Manners of Langdon & Emison LLC in Lexington; Community Health Group was represented by Sean T. McGrevey of Adam & McGrevey PA in Overland Park, Kansas; and St. Luke’s was represented by Adam S. Davis of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP in Kansas City.
Surviving family members of five individuals who died in 2002 while patients at a Chillicothe medical center filed wrongful death actions in 2010 and 2011 against the medical center and its corporate affiliates (collectively, St. Luke’s), claiming a respiratory therapist purposely administered lethal overdoses of medication, resulting in the deaths. The survivors also alleged St. Luke’s actively concealed the respiratory therapist’s actions. The circuit court granted summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial) in favor of St. Luke’s, finding the claims were barred because a defendant’s fraud does not prevent the three-year statute of limitations for wrongful death actions from running. On appeal, this Court held fraud did not prevent the statute of limitations from barring wrongful death claims. The next year, the survivors sued St. Luke’s for fraudulent nondisclosure causing them to lose their ability to pursue their wrongful death claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of St. Luke’s, finding the fraud claims were barred by res judicata (matters already adjudicated on their merits cannot be relitigated by the same parties) because they were the same as the wrongful death claims and, therefore, should have been filed in the original litigation. The circuit court also held the fraud claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations for fraud. The survivors appeal.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One is whether the survivors’ fraud claims are barred by res judicata because the claims arose at the same time, involved the same subject matter and acts by the same persons, and would require the same evidence to prove as the prior litigation. The other question involves when the alleged fraud was and discoverable and the effect, if any, of this Court’s prior decision regarding the survivors’ wrongful death claims.
SC97412_survivors_brief
SC97412_survivors_reply_brief
SC97511
Leslie Seaton v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company
St. Louis County
Whether underinsured motorist coverage extends to a particular person
Listen to the oral argument: SC97511 MP3 file
Shelter was represented during arguments by James D. Ribaudo of Gausnell, O’Keefe & Thomas LLC in St. Louis; Seaton was represented by Joseph L. Bauer Jr. of The Bauer Law Firm LLC in St. Louis.
Leslie Seaton sought underinsured motorist coverage from three Shelter Mutual Insurance Company automobile policies on behalf of her daughter, who died in a June 2010 vehicle accident in which she was a passenger. Shelter agreed one of the policies covered the daughter and tendered the $100,000 policy limit for underinsured motorist coverage. Shelter denied coverage under the other two policies, concluding the daughter was not a defined insured under those policies. Seaton sued Shelter, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding coverage and damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment in Seaton’s favor. It determined the policies’ underinsured motorist provisions were ambiguous and construed the policies against Shelter. The circuit court awarded Seaton $200,000, the policies’ limits. Shelter appeals.
This appeal presents questions for this Court involving whether the policies’ provisions are ambiguous, whether circuit court properly interpreted the policies in determining they covered Seaton’s daughter, and whether the definition of “relative” in the policies had to be repeated in the underinsured motorist endorsement to be effective.
The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers and the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys filed briefs as friends of the court. The defense organization argues the insurance endorsements are not separate contracts and must be read with the rest of the policy; the policies’ definitions should be enforced; and not all definitions and exclusions should be read as ambiguities creating insurance coverage. The trial attorney association argues the policies’ definition of “relative” is nonsensical and violates public policy by providing only illusory coverage.
SC97511_Shelter_brief
SC97511_Seaton_brief
SC97511_Shelter_reply_brief
SC97511_MODL_amicus_brief
SC9751_MATA_amicus_brief
SC97608
State ex rel. Apollo L. Brown v. The Honorable Jason Kanoy
Caldwell County
Whether double jeopardy prevents successive criminal contempt proceedings
Listen to the oral argument: SC97608 MP3 file
Brown was represented during arguments by Matthew G. Mueller of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Wyatt Z. Roberts of Hensley Law Office in Raymore.
Apollo Brown pleaded guilty to violating an order of protection in June 2013. The circuit court sentenced him to 180 days in the Caldwell County jail, suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation for two years. The circuit court also ordered Brown to pay his court costs at a rate of $50 per month. The circuit court scheduled Brown to appear for a payment review the next month. After Brown violated his probation, the circuit court executed the jail sentence. After his release, the circuit court ordered him to pay $100 per month toward his court costs and scheduled a show cause hearing in November 2014 to review Brown’s payments. Brown failed to appear. In March 2015, the circuit court found him in contempt and sentenced him to two days in jail with credit for time served. Since then, the circuit court has set payment review hearings approximately every month. Brown seeks to make permanent this Court’s preliminary writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any action other than canceling the next scheduled show cause hearing.
This case presents one question for this Court – whether double jeopardy protections attach in criminal contempt proceedings and, if so, whether double jeopardy prevents the circuit court from making successive findings of criminal contempt against Brown.
SC97608_Brown_brief
SC97511
Leslie Seaton v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company
St. Louis County
Whether underinsured motorist coverage extends to a particular person
Listen to the oral argument: SC97511 MP3 file
Shelter was represented during arguments by James D. Ribaudo of Gausnell, O’Keefe & Thomas LLC in St. Louis; Seaton was represented by Joseph L. Bauer Jr. of The Bauer Law Firm LLC in St. Louis.
Leslie Seaton sought underinsured motorist coverage from three Shelter Mutual Insurance Company automobile policies on behalf of her daughter, who died in a June 2010 vehicle accident in which she was a passenger. Shelter agreed one of the policies covered the daughter and tendered the $100,000 policy limit for underinsured motorist coverage. Shelter denied coverage under the other two policies, concluding the daughter was not a defined insured under those policies. Seaton sued Shelter, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding coverage and damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment in Seaton’s favor. It determined the policies’ underinsured motorist provisions were ambiguous and construed the policies against Shelter. The circuit court awarded Seaton $200,000, the policies’ limits. Shelter appeals.
This appeal presents questions for this Court involving whether the policies’ provisions are ambiguous, whether circuit court properly interpreted the policies in determining they covered Seaton’s daughter, and whether the definition of “relative” in the policies had to be repeated in the underinsured motorist endorsement to be effective.
The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers and the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys filed briefs as friends of the court. The defense organization argues the insurance endorsements are not separate contracts and must be read with the rest of the policy; the policies’ definitions should be enforced; and not all definitions and exclusions should be read as ambiguities creating insurance coverage. The trial attorney association argues the policies’ definition of “relative” is nonsensical and violates public policy by providing only illusory coverage.
SC97511_Shelter_brief
SC97511_Seaton_brief
SC97511_Shelter_reply_brief
SC97511_MODL_amicus_brief
SC9751_MATA_amicus_brief
SC97608
State ex rel. Apollo L. Brown v. The Honorable Jason Kanoy
Caldwell County
Whether double jeopardy prevents successive criminal contempt proceedings
Listen to the oral argument: SC97608 MP3 file
Brown was represented during arguments by Matthew G. Mueller of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Wyatt Z. Roberts of Hensley Law Office in Raymore.
Apollo Brown pleaded guilty to violating an order of protection in June 2013. The circuit court sentenced him to 180 days in the Caldwell County jail, suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation for two years. The circuit court also ordered Brown to pay his court costs at a rate of $50 per month. The circuit court scheduled Brown to appear for a payment review the next month. After Brown violated his probation, the circuit court executed the jail sentence. After his release, the circuit court ordered him to pay $100 per month toward his court costs and scheduled a show cause hearing in November 2014 to review Brown’s payments. Brown failed to appear. In March 2015, the circuit court found him in contempt and sentenced him to two days in jail with credit for time served. Since then, the circuit court has set payment review hearings approximately every month. Brown seeks to make permanent this Court’s preliminary writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any action other than canceling the next scheduled show cause hearing.
This case presents one question for this Court – whether double jeopardy protections attach in criminal contempt proceedings and, if so, whether double jeopardy prevents the circuit court from making successive findings of criminal contempt against Brown.
SC97608_Brown_brief
SC97608_Brown_reply_brief
SC96924
State of Missouri v. Craig Michael Wood
Greene County
Challenge to imposition of death sentence in murder case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96924 MP3 file
Wood was represented during arguments by Rosemary E. Percival of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
A Springfield couple observed a man in a pickup truck stop to speak with a 10-year-old girl in front of their home, grab her, put her in the truck and drive away. Later that evening, officers found the pickup truck, and its driver, Craig Wood, agreed to be interviewed at police headquarters. Meanwhile, officers entered his home, finding part of the basement was wet with bleach. They obtained a warrant to search the home and found the girl’s unclothed body in a plastic tub with bleach residue. Officers recovered firearms and a spent shell casing, photographs of girls who had been students at the middle school where Wood worked, and handwritten stories fantasizing about sexual encounters between a man and young girls. Police later found the girl’s clothing in a trash bin behind a strip mall near Woods’ home, and surveillance video showed Wood putting the clothes into the trash bin. An autopsy revealed the girl had been shot in the head. It also revealed vaginal and anal injuries. The state charged Wood with first-degree murder and submitted, as statutory aggravating circumstances in support of the death penalty, evidence that Wood raped and sodomized the girl. The jury found Wood guilty and unanimously found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state proved statutory aggravating factors. But the jury was unable to reach unanimity as to a recommended a punishment. The circuit court sentenced Wood to death. Wood appeals.
This appeal presents a number of questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court properly struck for cause a proposed juror who said she was opposed to the death penalty but then said she could listen to the evidence and consider both the death penalty and life imprisonment without parole. Other questions involve whether certain evidence admitted during the penalty phase of the trial over Wood’s objection violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial by a fair and impartial jury, to be tried only for the offenses charged, to confront witnesses against him, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the capricious or arbitrary infliction of the death penalty and, if so, whether he was prejudiced as a result. The challenged evidence includes photographs from the girl’s cellular telephone; testimony and photographs of firearms, ammunition and related supplies found in Wood’s home; Wood’s photographs showing girls who attended the school where he worked; and evidence of the fantasy stories he wrote. He also challenges evidence introduced during the penalty phase about the number of people who attended a vigil for the girl and whether other parents in the community feared for their children’s safety. Another question is whether the state made comments during its closing argument implying the girl’s family desired the death penalty and, if so, whether the circuit court should have sustained Wood’s objection to the argument. Additional questions involve whether the statute allowing a judge to make critical factual findings necessary to impose the death penalty when the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to the appropriate punishment is unconstitutional or violates evolving standards of decency. A further question is whether Missouri’s statutory death penalty scheme properly narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and, if not, whether it violates Wood’s constitutional rights to sentence him to death under these statutes.
Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, which filed a brief as friends of the Court, focus on federal constitutional issues. They argue the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to make an affirmative finding that mitigating evidence does not outweigh aggravating evidence before the death sentence can be imposed; Missouri’s capital sentencing statute violates the Sixth Amendment in allowing a judge to make independent factual findings supporting a death sentence when the jury deadlocks; and a death sentence imposed when a jury fails to conclude unanimously it is warranted violates the Eighth Amendment.
SC96924_Wood_brief
SC96924_State_brief
SC96924
State of Missouri v. Craig Michael Wood
Greene County
Challenge to imposition of death sentence in murder case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96924 MP3 file
Wood was represented during arguments by Rosemary E. Percival of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
A Springfield couple observed a man in a pickup truck stop to speak with a 10-year-old girl in front of their home, grab her, put her in the truck and drive away. Later that evening, officers found the pickup truck, and its driver, Craig Wood, agreed to be interviewed at police headquarters. Meanwhile, officers entered his home, finding part of the basement was wet with bleach. They obtained a warrant to search the home and found the girl’s unclothed body in a plastic tub with bleach residue. Officers recovered firearms and a spent shell casing, photographs of girls who had been students at the middle school where Wood worked, and handwritten stories fantasizing about sexual encounters between a man and young girls. Police later found the girl’s clothing in a trash bin behind a strip mall near Woods’ home, and surveillance video showed Wood putting the clothes into the trash bin. An autopsy revealed the girl had been shot in the head. It also revealed vaginal and anal injuries. The state charged Wood with first-degree murder and submitted, as statutory aggravating circumstances in support of the death penalty, evidence that Wood raped and sodomized the girl. The jury found Wood guilty and unanimously found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state proved statutory aggravating factors. But the jury was unable to reach unanimity as to a recommended a punishment. The circuit court sentenced Wood to death. Wood appeals.
This appeal presents a number of questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court properly struck for cause a proposed juror who said she was opposed to the death penalty but then said she could listen to the evidence and consider both the death penalty and life imprisonment without parole. Other questions involve whether certain evidence admitted during the penalty phase of the trial over Wood’s objection violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial by a fair and impartial jury, to be tried only for the offenses charged, to confront witnesses against him, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the capricious or arbitrary infliction of the death penalty and, if so, whether he was prejudiced as a result. The challenged evidence includes photographs from the girl’s cellular telephone; testimony and photographs of firearms, ammunition and related supplies found in Wood’s home; Wood’s photographs showing girls who attended the school where he worked; and evidence of the fantasy stories he wrote. He also challenges evidence introduced during the penalty phase about the number of people who attended a vigil for the girl and whether other parents in the community feared for their children’s safety. Another question is whether the state made comments during its closing argument implying the girl’s family desired the death penalty and, if so, whether the circuit court should have sustained Wood’s objection to the argument. Additional questions involve whether the statute allowing a judge to make critical factual findings necessary to impose the death penalty when the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to the appropriate punishment is unconstitutional or violates evolving standards of decency. A further question is whether Missouri’s statutory death penalty scheme properly narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and, if not, whether it violates Wood’s constitutional rights to sentence him to death under these statutes.
Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, which filed a brief as friends of the Court, focus on federal constitutional issues. They argue the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to make an affirmative finding that mitigating evidence does not outweigh aggravating evidence before the death sentence can be imposed; Missouri’s capital sentencing statute violates the Sixth Amendment in allowing a judge to make independent factual findings supporting a death sentence when the jury deadlocks; and a death sentence imposed when a jury fails to conclude unanimously it is warranted violates the Eighth Amendment.
SC96924_Wood_brief
SC96924_State_brief