Case Summary for April 16, 2003

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for April 16, 2003

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 THE BRIEF(S) FILED BY THE PARTY OR PARTIES. THESE ELECTRONIC BRIEFS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO PDF BY THE COURT'S STAFF TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS WORD PROCESSORS. (If you do not already have the Acrobat reader, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website.) THE ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT REFLECT ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT, THE COMPLETE ELECTRONIC FILING, OR THE FORMAT OF THE ORGINAL FILING. APPENDICES AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS GENERALLY WILL NOT BE POSTED HERE. (To determine whether or which briefs have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.) POSTING OF THE BRIEFS DOES NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMAT OF THE BRIEFS OR THE MERITS OF A CASE. THESE POSTINGS ARE NOT OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

NOTE: This day's arguments will begin at 1 p.m. rather than 9 a.m.
______________________________________________________________________________

SC84452
State of Missouri v. Cecil Barriner
New Madrid and Warren counties
Direct appeal of death sentences

Following a decision by this Court, State v. Barriner, 34 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. banc 2000), Cecil Barriner was retried in February 2002 in Warren County, following three changes of venue, for the December 1996 stabbing deaths of Candace Sisk and her grandmother, Irene Sisk, at their New Madrid County home. The pathologist testified that both women had died from blood loss resulting from stab wounds to their necks. Candace Sisk was the daughter of Barriner's ex-girlfriend. After being read his Miranda rights, Barriner told a highway patrol officer that he had gone to the Sisks' home to borrow money, that he took Candace Sisk to her bank, where she withdrew $1,000 for him, and that he killed the women when they would not stop screaming. The Warren County jury convicted Barriner of two counts of first-degree murder. The court followed the jury's recommendation and imposed two death sentences on Barriner. He appeals.

Barriner argues the court should not have excluded exculpatory evidence that hair found at the crime scene and tested by the state did not match hair samples taken from Barriner or the Sisks. He contends the court should have allowed his attorney to cross-examine his friend about whether she was aware of or had heard of a newspaper article about a reward being offered in his case to show that she was motivated to implicate Barriner because of the reward. He asserts the court should not have allowed the state to elicit testimony from his ex-girlfriend that he was angry and mad when she broke up with him and that she had received a letter from him that disturbed her because this testimony was irrelevant to the charges against him. Barriner argues the court should not have overruled his motions for a continuance, to change venue, to select jurors from another county or for individual questioning of jurors who had read or heard about the case due to statements the prosecutor made to the media about the Sisk murders. He contends the media coverage also reported information about a previous murder in which charges against him were dropped. He asserts the court should have excluded statements he made to the patrol officer because he did not voluntarily, knowingly or intelligently waive his rights before making the statements, because he was incoherent during part of the interrogation, and because the officer intimidated him during the interrogation. Barriner argues the court erred in imposing death sentences, which he contends were unreliable and excessive. He also asserts the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the death penalty because the state did not charge facts necessary to support aggravating factors that permit the death penalty.

The state responds that the court properly excluded the hair evidence because Barriner failed to show, in his offer of proof, that the evidence was material or legally relevant to the case and because Barriner was not prejudiced in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The state argues that this Court should not review Barriner's complaint about the prosecutor's closing argument that "not one shred of evidence" indicates Barriner was not guilty because it was proper argument and was not a comment on excluded evidence. The state contends the court properly excluded further questioning about the reward because Barriner already had asked his friend about it and she answered that she did not. It asserts the ex-girlfriend's testimony that Barriner was angry when they broke up and that he sent her a letter that disturbed her about a month before the murders was logically and legally relevant to show he murdered her daughter because of his animus toward her. The state argues that the court properly denied Barriner's motions with regard to venue and the jury because only two potential jurors said they had heard about the media coverage, because none had formed opinions about the case and because the questioning permitted was sufficient to reveal any bias. The state contends Barriner's statements to the patrol officer were voluntary and that, even if this Court believes anything the officer said showed a threat, it was not a credible threat that would render Barriner's confession involuntary. The state asserts that, in its independent review, this Court should affirm Barriner's death sentences because they were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or other arbitrary factor and because they are not disproportionate or excessive. The state further responds that it is not required to plead in the information the statutory aggravating factors it intends to submit during the punishment phase of the trial.

SC84610
State ex rel. American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. The Honorable Thomas C. Clark and the Honorable Edith L. Messina, Judges of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit
Jackson County
Certification of a class action suit against insurance company

American Family Mutual Insurance Company has used aftermarket and salvaged original equipment manufacturers' (OEM) parts to repair policyholders' older vehicles since 1985. A group of American Family automobile insurance policyholders in 14 states sued the insurance company for breach of contract for alleged failure to restore their vehicles to "pre-loss condition" every time the company used aftermarket crash parts to estimate the cost to repair damaged vehicles. These policyholders sued on behalf of themselves and on a class of other similarly situated policyholders. They allege that American Family pays only for cheaper, inferior replacement parts rather than quality OEM parts when their vehicles need to be repaired after collisions. They also allege that American Family omits certain necessary repairs from its collision repair estimates. In August 2001, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class pursuant to Rule 52.08. The court began an eight-day evidentiary hearing into the matter in late October 2001, and in December 2001, the court certified the plaintiff class. American Family now seeks relief from this Court.

American Family argues this Court should enter a writ prohibiting the court below from taking any action in this case except to vacate its order certifying the multistate class. It contends the order violates the due process clauses of the federal and state constitution as well as the federal full faith and credit clause by arbitrarily and unfairly using Missouri's class action procedural rule to protect the jurisdiction of Missouri courts. It asserts the transactions at issue are wholly private, wholly local transactions and events occurring over a 10-year period of time in 13 other states and that they have no substantial individual or aggregate contact with Missouri. American Family asserts it exceeds Missouri courts' power to exercise jurisdiction over the substantive law and statutes of limitations of other states. American Family further argues that even a class limited only to Missouri policyholders impermissibly would violate the company's due process rights to have individualized outcome-determinative questions of proof.

The policyholders in the class respond that the court properly certified the multistate class and that the certification order does not violate either the state or federal constitution. They argue that the court found that each element of Rule 52.08 was satisfied, including the requirement that common issues of fact and law predominate. They contend the other states' contract laws do not vary from Missouri's regarding the use of replacement parts in vehicle repairs. They assert that the overriding issue is one of breach of contract and that alleged variations as to affirmative defenses do not conflict with Missouri law enough to defeat the class certification. The policyholder class members respond that there is no indication that the court intends to apply Missouri law to out-of-state claims in the event of a true conflict. They argue the court properly concluded that, for purposes of class certification, neither a vehicle's pre-loss nor post-repair condition were relevant. They contend American Family is required to pay for parts similar in kind and quality to OEM parts and does not consider the issues when it specifies non-OEM parts in an estimate.

The Ohio department of insurance superintendent argues, as an amicus curiae, that multistate class certification in this case would offend the principles of state sovereignty. He contends that common questions of law and fact do not predominate to the extent necessary to justify multistate class certification. He also asserts that a multistate class action is not the best way to litigate the policyholders' claims fairly and efficiently because consumers still could seek statewide relief through action in other states.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners argue, as an amicus curiae, that states have taken varied approaches to the use of non-OEM parts in repairing vehicles consistent with established principles of insurance regulation. It contends that, while individual states may regulate the relationship between policyholder and insurer, the court here exceeded the limits of its regulatory authority.