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 a.m. Thursday, October 3, 2019
SC97811
State of Missouri v. Anthony James Smith
Montgomery County
Challenge to probable cause for vehicle stop leading to drug conviction
Listen to the oral argument: SC97811 MP3 file
Smith was represented during arguments by John James of James Law Group LLC in St. Peters; the state was represented by Garrick Aplin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
A highway patrol trooper stopped a vehicle, driven by Anthony James Smith, after observing its turn signal deactivating before lane changes were complete and observing it appearing to cross the interstate’s “fog line.” The trooper smelled marijuana emanating from the vehicle, so he searched it and found marijuana. The state charged Smith with felony possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. At trial, Smith sought to suppress evidence of the marijuana, arguing the trooper never had reasonable suspicion he was committing a crime sufficient to initiate the traffic stop. The circuit court overruled his motion to suppress and subsequent objections to admission of the evidence. He was found guilty as charged. The circuit court sentenced him to seven years in prison for the drug possession charge, fined him $100 for the paraphernalia charge and suspended execution of the prison sentence, placing Smith on supervised probation for five years. Smith appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion to believe Smith was committing a traffic violation or other crime sufficient to stop the vehicle and, if not, whether the circuit court clearly erred in admitting evidence of the marijuana.
State of Missouri v. Anthony James Smith
Montgomery County
Challenge to probable cause for vehicle stop leading to drug conviction
Listen to the oral argument: SC97811 MP3 file
Smith was represented during arguments by John James of James Law Group LLC in St. Peters; the state was represented by Garrick Aplin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
A highway patrol trooper stopped a vehicle, driven by Anthony James Smith, after observing its turn signal deactivating before lane changes were complete and observing it appearing to cross the interstate’s “fog line.” The trooper smelled marijuana emanating from the vehicle, so he searched it and found marijuana. The state charged Smith with felony possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. At trial, Smith sought to suppress evidence of the marijuana, arguing the trooper never had reasonable suspicion he was committing a crime sufficient to initiate the traffic stop. The circuit court overruled his motion to suppress and subsequent objections to admission of the evidence. He was found guilty as charged. The circuit court sentenced him to seven years in prison for the drug possession charge, fined him $100 for the paraphernalia charge and suspended execution of the prison sentence, placing Smith on supervised probation for five years. Smith appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion to believe Smith was committing a traffic violation or other crime sufficient to stop the vehicle and, if not, whether the circuit court clearly erred in admitting evidence of the marijuana.
SC97470
Priorities USA, et al. v. State of Missouri, et al.
Cole County
Challenge to injunction against portions of new voter identification law
Listen to the oral argument: SC97470 MP3 file
The state was represented during arguments by Solicitor General D. John Sauer of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City; Priorities USA was represented by Marc Elias of Perkins Coie LLP in Washington, D.C.
In 2016, the legislature passed a voter identification law contingent on Missouri voters adopting constitutional changes to the state’s voting provisions later that year. When the voters approved the constitutional changes, the statutory changes became law. The new voter identification law gives voters three options for presenting personal identification to vote. If voters do not have personal identification (defined to include a driver’s license, nondriver’s license, passport, military identification or veteran’s identification) with them when they come to the polls, “option two” permits them to sign an affidavit and present non-photographic identification. Challengers filed a lawsuit alleging provisions of the voter identification law were unconstitutional. After a trial, the circuit court entirely enjoined use of the affidavit as well as other materials suggesting that photographic identification is a prerequisite for voting, finding the affidavit requirement impermissibly infringes on a citizen’s right to vote under the state constitution. The state appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court should have enjoined entirely the use of an affidavit when voting under “option two.” Related questions include whether the affidavit summarizes the voter identification statute accurately, does not burden the right to vote and is narrowly tailored to advance compelling state interests; whether a narrower remedy of allowing the secretary of state to rewrite the affidavit was available, authorized and appropriate; and whether the circuit court should have severed statutory text sparingly rather than severing the affidavit’s entire text. An additional question involves whether the photographic identification materials the secretary of state sought to disseminate accurately reflect the voter identification law’s requirements and, if so, whether the circuit court erred in enjoining such dissemination.
SC97470_State_brief
SC97470_Priorities_USA_brief
SC97470_State_reply_brief
SC97792
In re: Stacey Rosa Hancock
St. Louis County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC97792 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by Cheryl D. S. Walker, an attorney in Clayton and special representative of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office; Hancock was represented by Bernard Edwards, an attorney in St. Louis.
A woman retained attorney Stacey Rosa Hancock to represent her in a personal injury case. The engagement agreement authorized Hancock to endorse certain settlement documents on the woman’s behalf but did not authorize Hancock to settle any claim without her client’s consent. Hancock settled both a property damage claim and an underinsured motorist claim on her client’s behalf. She signed her client’s name on the settlement agreement, returned it to the insurer, and signed her client’s name on the settlement check and deposited it into her trust account, all without her client’s knowledge or consent. The client did not learn about the settlement until she hired a second attorney. More than 13 months elapsed before the client received her settlement funds. The client filed a complaint against Hancock, and the chief disciplinary counsel’s office initiated an investigation. During the investigation, the chief disciplinary counsel’s office audited Hancock’s trust account. The investigator found the trust account’s balance frequently fell below that necessary to pay settlement proceeds to various clients, clients did not receive the amounts due them, some third-party providers were not paid, trust account funds were transferred into the operating fund, and operating funds were used to pay personal expenses. Following an evidentiary hearing, a disciplinary hearing panel issued its decision. The panel found Hancock violated multiple rules of professional conduct and recommended she be disbarred. The chief disciplinary counsel accepted the panel’s decision; Hancock did not. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to disbar Hancock; Hancock seeks a lesser discipline.
This case presents two issues for this Court – whether Hancock violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC97792_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC97792_Hancock_brief
SC97919
In re: Anissa Faye Bluebaum
Greene County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC97919 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel, Alan Pratzel of Jefferson City, represented his office during arguments; Bluebaum, an attorney in Springfield, represented herself.
Two different women hired Springfield attorney Anissa Faye Bluebaum to represent them in their respective dissolution proceedings. Each paid her a $1,500 advance fee. Bluebaum did not respond to either client’s multiple requests for information. In one woman’s case, Bluebaum failed to enter her appearance or respond to the husband’s petition and, ultimately, the circuit court entered a default judgment against Bluebaum’s client. Bluebaum did not refund the advance fee for nearly 15 months. In the other woman’s case, Bluebam prepared incomplete and incorrect documents, untimely filed the documents, failed to complete discovery, and closed one of her offices without notifying her client. Bluebaum requested a continuance of the trial due to her own health but failed to appear at the rescheduled trial. Despite requests to do so, Bluebaum failed to provide her client with an itemized statement or a copy of her file. The woman ultimately hired another attorney to complete her dissolution case. Both women filed complaints with the chief disciplinary counsel’s office. Bluebaum failed to respond to the complaints and the chief disciplinary counsel’s office’s requests for documentation relating to her trust and general accounts. An investigation of the accounts showed Bluebaum failed to withdraw earned fees promptly from her trust account, her trust account balance on several occasions fell below the amount necessary to cover her clients’ deposits, reduced what her clients were owed by the amount of fees charged for making payments, deposited her own money in the trust account to cover the fees charged but did not reconcile the expense, and otherwise comingled her own funds with her client funds. During an evidentiary hearing, Bluebaum presented mitigating evidence regarding bankruptcy proceedings against her as well as physical and mental health concerns affecting her work and her ability to respond to the disciplinary proceedings. A disciplinary hearing panel issued its decision finding Bluebaum violated multiple rules of professional conduct and recommending her law license be suspended indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for two years. The chief disciplinary counsel accepted the recommendation; Bluebaum did not. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to suspend Bluebaum’s license as recommended; Bluebaum asks that any suspension be stayed and that the Court place her on probation.
This case presents two issues for this Court – whether Bluebaum violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC97919_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC97919
In re: Anissa Faye Bluebaum
Greene County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC97919 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel, Alan Pratzel of Jefferson City, represented his office during arguments; Bluebaum, an attorney in Springfield, represented herself.
Two different women hired Springfield attorney Anissa Faye Bluebaum to represent them in their respective dissolution proceedings. Each paid her a $1,500 advance fee. Bluebaum did not respond to either client’s multiple requests for information. In one woman’s case, Bluebaum failed to enter her appearance or respond to the husband’s petition and, ultimately, the circuit court entered a default judgment against Bluebaum’s client. Bluebaum did not refund the advance fee for nearly 15 months. In the other woman’s case, Bluebam prepared incomplete and incorrect documents, untimely filed the documents, failed to complete discovery, and closed one of her offices without notifying her client. Bluebaum requested a continuance of the trial due to her own health but failed to appear at the rescheduled trial. Despite requests to do so, Bluebaum failed to provide her client with an itemized statement or a copy of her file. The woman ultimately hired another attorney to complete her dissolution case. Both women filed complaints with the chief disciplinary counsel’s office. Bluebaum failed to respond to the complaints and the chief disciplinary counsel’s office’s requests for documentation relating to her trust and general accounts. An investigation of the accounts showed Bluebaum failed to withdraw earned fees promptly from her trust account, her trust account balance on several occasions fell below the amount necessary to cover her clients’ deposits, reduced what her clients were owed by the amount of fees charged for making payments, deposited her own money in the trust account to cover the fees charged but did not reconcile the expense, and otherwise comingled her own funds with her client funds. During an evidentiary hearing, Bluebaum presented mitigating evidence regarding bankruptcy proceedings against her as well as physical and mental health concerns affecting her work and her ability to respond to the disciplinary proceedings. A disciplinary hearing panel issued its decision finding Bluebaum violated multiple rules of professional conduct and recommending her law license be suspended indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for two years. The chief disciplinary counsel accepted the recommendation; Bluebaum did not. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to suspend Bluebaum’s license as recommended; Bluebaum asks that any suspension be stayed and that the Court place her on probation.
This case presents two issues for this Court – whether Bluebaum violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC97919_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief