Law Office of Camron Hoorfar, PC

Statutes provide that the elements of second-degree harassment include “to act ‘without good cause’ and with ‘the purpose to cause emotional distress [.]’” Those provisions apply to communications without implicating First Amendment protections because those provisions rely on purpose instead of subjective reaction, giving notice and a standard, and narrow the application to the unprotected activity of fighting words. Fighting words are outside constitutional protection even when delivered through Facebook, and not face-to-face, so defendant’s threats to his parole officer supported a conviction for the second-degree harassment. Those facts also supported a conviction for tampering with a judicial official, and a separate sentence for that offense was no more than the General Assembly intended, so it did not violate Double Jeopardy’s bar on cumulative sentencing. Second-degree harassment was not a lesser included offense of tampering with a judicial official because the test is not the facts alleged, but the elements of the statutes. The statutes have differing elements, so conviction of one does not necessarily constitute conviction of the other, taking them outside of Double Jeopardy.  
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Joshua Steven Collins, Appellant. 

Need an attorney? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

An instruction is due when it has support in substantial evidence. Evidence showed that defendant shot persons who ran at defendant with a firearm, and punched defendant through defendant’s open car window, so an instruction was due under statute embodying the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine allows deadly force reasonably believed necessary against unlawful force from a person who unlawfully entered her vehicle. Evidence that the person who struck defendant withdrew immediately does not negate the evidence that the unlawful entry and gunshot occurred simultaneously. Submitting only a general self-defense instruction prejudiced defendant because that instruction required defendant to show that defendant faced death or serious physical injury. When the evidence supported instructions for both general self-defense and Castle Doctrine, both instructions were due. Remanded for new trial.

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Andrea Shaunte Straughter, Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC99170

If you’re in need of legal help, call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Missouri found out about a campaign mailer of Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s that features a photograph of Schmitt with three of the Court’s judges. The photograph was taken at a public event that the judges attended during the state’s bicentennial celebration last August. The judges attended the event as a celebration of the different branches of state government working together. The photo was taken with neither the Court nor its judges knowledge that it would go one to be distributed in a political context.

None of the judges did – or ever would – consent to their names, titles or likenesses being used in any political context. The Court hopes that Missouri citizens know that no Supreme Court judge would or could endorse a political candidate, and this photo should not be taken as such an endorsement despite the implication of the mailer.

Article V, section 25(f) of the Missouri Constitution prohibits Supreme Court judges from engaging in any political activity. They are reporting the incident as required by their judicial code of conduct and legal ethics. Meanwhile, the Court has asked the attorney general’s office to delete this photograph and any others like it from the office’s public or social media accounts to help prevent any further inappropriate use of such images.

Interested in speaking with an attorney? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.

Absent other exceptions, the only circuit court ruling that is subject to appeal is a final judgment, meaning a writing denominated as a judgment that addresses all claims as to all parties. Judgment addressed all claims as to all parties except each party’s claim for attorney fees. “An unresolved claim for attorney’s fees can arrest the finality of a judgment, and defeat appellate jurisdiction.” Appeal, cross-appeal, and claims for attorney fees on appeal dismissed.  

David & Amy Schmidt vs. Dart Bein, LC 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD84253, WD84490, and WD84491

“In Missouri, it is unlawful for any student to attend school unless he or she is properly immunized and can provide satisfactory evidence of such immunization or unless he or she is properly exempted.” Nothing requires the State to provide an exemption to a neutral and generally applicable mandate on religious grounds, but Missouri has elected to do so, through statutes providing that proper exemption is subject to regulations of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Those regulations require the use of a prescribed form. That regulation is within statutory authority, does not violate the Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has a rational relationship to the State’s interest in preventing childhood disease, does not bar the expression of religious beliefs, and does not compel complicity in vaccination in violation of any constitutional provision.

For plaintiff to state a claim against defendant, plaintiff must describe a justiciable controversy. A justiciable controversy in an action for declaratory judgment, bringing a pre-enforcement challenge to a provision of law, includes the defendant’s authority to enforce the challenged provision against the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs did not allege that defendant local health authorities had any authority over, or made any attempt to enforce, the use of a form for exemption to vaccination requirements prescribed by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the petition, affirmed. 

Audrey Baker, et al. vs. Crossroads Academy-Central Street, et al. 

If you are in need of legal help, call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.