Act for Missouri Logo

Here to Educate, Activate, and Engage Missouri Citizens!

Join us in our mission through meaningful actions and initiatives.

Find Your Missouri Legislators

Should Judge Matthew P. Hamner Be Retained?

Voters in the Southern District will see this question on the November 3, 2026 ballot. We reviewed 16 of his rulings from 2024 to 2026. Here is what we found, what the court could have ruled instead, and where Act for Missouri comes down. We keep those three things separate so you can use the first two even if you disagree with the third.

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
Ballot question
“Shall Judge Matthew P. Hamner be retained?” A majority of yes votes keeps him. This question appears on ballots in the Southern District.
Appointed
March 2024, by Gov. Mike Parson (R), to the seat vacated when Judge Ginger Gooch was appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court. This is his first retention vote.
Term if retained
12 years.
Official committee recommendation
The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee recommends retention. It made the same recommendation for all 50 judges it reviewed this year.

How this page works

The Record

Facts only. What the judge ruled, how colleagues voted, and links to the opinions. We say plainly when something is contested or when we have not reviewed it.

What the court could have ruled

The ruling as issued and a real alternative, each with its strongest support from the opinions. Every alternative points to a lower court’s ruling, a party’s argument, a dissent, or an earlier court decision.

Act for Missouri's View

Our opinion. We say which result we think better follows the law, and where the judge’s choice shows a view different from ours. It is the only part of this page that is editorial.

Jump to: The Record • What the court could have ruled • Act for Missouri's View • Sources

The Record

Facts only

Background

Judge Hamner earned his law degree from the University of Missouri in 2001 and practiced privately until he was elected an associate circuit judge in Camden County in 2014. Gov. Eric Greitens appointed him to the circuit bench in 2017, and he became presiding judge of the 26th Judicial Circuit. The Appellate Judicial Commission nominated him in February 2024, and Gov. Parson appointed him to the Southern District in March 2024.

What we reviewed

We read 16 rulings in full or in the parts that decide them: 14 he wrote and two he joined (State v. Dill, a ruling of the full court, and Doe v. First Baptist Church of Pierce City, which Judge West wrote). They run from May 2024 to October 2026 and cover criminal appeals, post-conviction relief, local government, personal injury, workers’ compensation, orders of protection, grain-dealer law, and a church’s liability. His record on the appeals court is short, about two and a half years, and we found 54 opinions he wrote in that time. Sixteen is a sample of those, not all of them. We chose rulings for what they showed about his approach and to cover politically sensitive cases. Six were chosen by a fixed rule so our picking could not steer the result: his earliest and latest non-dismissal opinion in each of 2024, 2025 and 2026 (Mulverhill and Parry, Yaggy and Joyce, Mutter and Frieden Farms). Because his time on this court is short, there is less to go on than for a judge of long service, and we say so in our view.

Reads statutes and constitutions by their wordsVerified

In Walton all seven judges of the court agreed that the Second Injury Fund statute does not let a prior enhanced award count toward the 50-week threshold, because of what the words say. In Henry County v. Dunn he read § 50.650 to put no personal liability on a sheriff, because the text does not. In Varney he held that the statute allowing a writ against a city requires a returned execution first, which the creditor conceded she did not have.

Holds government to the law, and applies it for government when it requiresVerified

He ruled for a former sheriff against two counties (Dunn), for a city against a creditor who had won a judgment (Varney), for a paving contractor sued over a fatal crash (Atchley), and against the Attorney General and Department of Agriculture on a grain-bond question (Frieden Farms). He also affirmed criminal convictions the State won and ordered hearings for prisoners where the record required them (Gray).

Protects the individual when the law requires itVerified

He vacated a full order of protection that lacked evidence (Hartwell), ordered a hearing on a prisoner’s uncalled-witness claim (Gray), and reversed nine first-degree assault counts for which the State conceded it had no evidence the defendant knew others were in the house (Whitney). He also affirmed child-sex-abuse and other serious convictions where the law required that (Mulverhill, Parry, Mutter).

Defers to trial courts and enforces appeal rulesVerified

He declined plain-error review where defense counsel had opened the door (Mutter), found an error waived by the defendant’s own evidence (Yaggy), left credibility to juries, and applied the rule that a harmless error does not undo a conviction (Mulverhill). He also vacated or reversed trial-court rulings when the law required it (Varney, Hartwell, Frieden Farms).

Judgment callsJudgment calls

In six rulings the law allowed more than one result, in whole or in part: whether the harm from inadmissible hearsay was enough to matter (Mulverhill), the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for resisting arrest, on which a colleague dissented (Dill), how broad a court’s order against a city may be (Varney), whether a stalking victim showed “alarm” (Hartwell), what remedy fits a failed claim (Butler County), and the video evidence in Whitney.

Applies the same approach each timeVerified

Across 16 rulings he used the same method: the text, binding precedent, and the standard of review. His results do not line up with one kind of party. He wrote no dissent in the rulings we read. This rests on a sample of a short record, not on every opinion he wrote.

Ethics, temperament, independence, clarity of writingNot yet reviewed

We have not independently reviewed these. The official committee evaluation is linked in the sources.

Rulings, newest first

Ruling 1: Grain dealer and warehouse bonds (State ex rel. Bailey and Chinn v. Frieden Farms, October 6, 2026)

The case. The Attorney General and the Department of Agriculture went to court after a grain dealer, Maneval, Inc., could not renew its license and an audit found it short on the grain it stored. Under the Missouri Grain Dealer Law and the Grain Warehouse Law, the question was how to classify the unpaid claims of farmers such as Frieden Farms, who had agreed to be paid later. The case carries the Attorney General’s name, but it is a dispute about bonds and contracts, not about politics.

The panel and the vote. Judge Goodman, Judge Growcock, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • The contract changes that deferred the price lacked consideration, meaning the sellers got nothing new in exchange for waiting.
  • Without a valid change, their claims are treated as dealer and storage claims, and the bond covers them.

The court reversed and sent the case back. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Ruling 2: Wrongful-death claims filed too late (Butler County Emergency Medical Services v. Proctor, July 28, 2026)

The case. A person’s spouse died in December 2019 after Butler County EMS took the spouse to a hospital. The survivor sued for wrongful death in 2022, dismissed that case, and refiled in August 2024. A state law requires the defendant to be served within 180 days (§ 537.100.2). The trial court refused to dismiss, and the ambulance service asked this court for a writ of mandamus.

The panel and the vote. Judge Bates, Judge Goodman, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • Service within 180 days is required by the statute. The plaintiff did not meet it, so counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 must be dismissed with prejudice.
  • Count 4, for negligent infliction of emotional distress, fails as pleaded. The trial court decides whether that dismissal is with or without prejudice.

The court made the writ permanent.

Ruling 3: A judgment against a city that has not been paid (State ex rel. Varney v. City of Edgar Springs, April 1, 2026)

The case. Ms. Varney won a $79,716.22 judgment on December 26, 2023, against the City of Edgar Springs for violating her constitutional and statutory rights. The city does not dispute the debt. The trial court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the city to pay her from its general and police funds, to pay nothing else from future revenue above a set amount until she was paid, and to put a tax levy on the ballot (voters defeated it in November 2024). The general account held $20,666.74 and the police account $37,219.48, and the treasurer said the surplus is about $5,000 a year.

The panel and the vote. Judge Burrell (Senior Judge), Judge Goodman, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • The statute for collecting a judgment from a city (§ 513.410) requires that an execution be returned unsatisfied first. Ms. Varney conceded none had issued. Her argument that it would be futile failed, because an execution can serve other purposes.
  • Under the common law, a writ can compel only a “ministerial” duty. The order went beyond that, and nothing gives her debt priority over the city’s other ordinary expenses. The court distinguished Gourley, where a writ issued and the city had ample funds.

The court vacated the writ and sent the case back, leaving open her arguments under § 513.410 once an execution is returned unsatisfied.

Ruling 4: A protective order against a school board member (Hartwell v. Baker, January 30, 2026)

The case. Rylee Hartwell, an elected member of the Joplin School Board, got a full order of protection against Daryl Baker on a stalking theory. Baker appealed. Hartwell filed no brief.

The panel and the vote. Judge Growcock, Judge Bates, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • A stalking order requires conduct that caused alarm, meaning fear of physical harm, and the trial court has to find it on substantial evidence.
  • The record did not contain substantial evidence of alarm.

The court reversed and vacated the order.

Ruling 5: Domestic assault and rape convictions (State v. Mutter, January 13, 2026)

The case. A jury convicted Mutter of first-degree domestic assault, third-degree domestic assault, and first-degree rape. He asked the court to review, for plain error, testimony about shooting through a wall. The jury acquitted him of armed criminal action.

The panel and the vote. Judge Growcock, Judge Nickell, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • The testimony came out on defense counsel’s own cross-examination, so there was no plain error to review.
  • The jury’s acquittal on armed criminal action shows it did not rest the verdict on that testimony.

The court affirmed the convictions. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Ruling 6: A guilty plea and a lawyer who did not call a witness (Joyce v. State, December 9, 2025)

The case. Joyce pleaded guilty to trafficking and filed a post-conviction motion (Rule 24.035) saying her lawyers were ineffective, including that they did not call her mother as a witness.

The panel and the vote. Judge Growcock, Judge Burrell, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • To prove ineffective assistance she had to show her lawyers erred and that she would have gone to trial otherwise.
  • Her mother’s testimony would have been cumulative of other evidence, and her other claims failed on the record.

The court affirmed the denial of relief. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Ruling 7: A prisoner’s post-conviction motion (Gray v. State, November 18, 2025)

The case. Gray filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion. The motion court denied it without a hearing. Gray said his lawyer should have interviewed and called a witness who was present that night, that his lawyer should have struck a juror who might favor law enforcement, and that the State had not disclosed a medical examination of the victim.

The panel and the vote. Judge Bates, Judge Burrell, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • Whether the motion was filed late did not require sending the case back for an inquiry into abandonment, so the court dealt with the claims directly.
  • The uncalled-witness claim and the claim about the undisclosed exam could not be denied without a hearing. The juror claim failed.

The court affirmed in part, and vacated and sent the case back for a hearing on the two claims.

Ruling 8: Second Injury Fund threshold (Walton v. Treasurer of Missouri, Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, March 20, 2025)

The case. Mark Walton, a diesel mechanic, had three work injuries over his career. He sought benefits from the Second Injury Fund, which pays when a work injury combines with an earlier disability. A 2008 settlement had given him an enhanced award for the combined effect of two earlier injuries, and he argued it counted toward the 50-week threshold in § 287.220.3. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied his claim.

The panel and the vote. The full court (all seven judges) heard the case. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and all concurred.

What the court held.

  • The statute’s threshold is measured by the permanent partial disability itself, and the enhanced part of a prior award does not count toward it.

The court affirmed the denial of fund benefits.

Ruling 9: A church sued over abuse (Doe v. First Baptist Church of Pierce City, reissued January 17, 2025)

The case. Doe took part in the church’s youth ministry. On two occasions in March 2022, another participant touched Doe inappropriately in the church van. Doe sued the church for negligence, saying it failed to follow standards for preventing child sexual abuse. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the church. The Southern District decided the case in September 2024, the Supreme Court took it and then sent it back in January 2025, and this court reissued its opinion.

The panel and the vote. Judge West wrote the opinion. Judge Hamner and Judge Growcock joined it. We include it because he joined it, not because he wrote it.

What the court held.

  • Under Gibson v. Brewer, the Supreme Court’s own decision, the First Amendment bars a negligence claim that asks a court to judge a church’s supervision of its clergy.
  • A lower appeals court is bound by that decision.

The court affirmed summary judgment for the church.

Ruling 10: A kidnapping and resisting-arrest conviction (State v. Yaggy, January 9, 2025)

The case. A jury convicted Yaggy of second-degree kidnapping and resisting arrest. He had followed a woman into her trailer as police arrived, held her inside and threatened her. He argued the trial court should have granted a judgment of acquittal.

The panel and the vote. Judge Growcock, Judge West, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • A defendant who puts on evidence of his own waives any error in denying acquittal at the close of the State’s case, and Yaggy called a friend as a witness.
  • His second claim did not say which counts lacked evidence, and weighing evidence is for the jury.

The court affirmed. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Ruling 11: Four life sentences for child sex crimes (State v. Parry, December 23, 2024)

The case. Parry was convicted of child molestation, statutory sodomy and related counts involving two minors, and received four consecutive life sentences plus 17 years. He argued the court wrongly excluded evidence that the victim had also said others abused her, and that his sentence rested on a mistaken belief.

The panel and the vote. Judge Sheffield, Judge Burrell, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • Missouri’s rape-shield statute (§ 491.015) bars most evidence of a victim’s other sexual abuse. The court rejected his three arguments that the evidence fit an exception or that the State opened the door.
  • The judge could consider that he refused to take part in the sentencing assessment.

The court affirmed. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

Ruling 12: Boarding prisoners out of county (Henry County and Taney County v. Dunn, October 23, 2024)

The case. Two counties sued the former sheriff of Jasper County for the cost of boarding Jasper County prisoners in their jails, $140,825.27 for Henry County and $54,225 for Taney County, saying he was personally responsible under § 50.650. The facts were undisputed. The Jasper County Commission had refused to pay, saying there was no budget line for boarding out of county.

The panel and the vote. Judge Burrell, Judge Growcock, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • The statute makes the county, not the sheriff personally, responsible. Its words do not put the cost on him.

The court vacated the judgment against the sheriff and sent the case back.

Ruling 13: A paving contractor’s duty (Atchley v. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and Apex Paving, August 12, 2024)

The case. Brantley Atchley and Becky Tittle sued after their daughter died in a crash on Highway 153 on April 26, 2020. They said a drop-off on the road’s shoulder was a dangerous condition. Apex Paving had a contract to resurface the highway, but had not designed or built it and had not started work on that stretch. The trial court granted summary judgment for Apex.

The panel and the vote. Judge Bates, Judge Sheffield, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • On the undisputed facts, Apex owed no common-law duty to the family, so there was no negligence claim to try.

The court affirmed summary judgment.

Ruling 14: Firing at an occupied house (State v. Whitney, August 22, 2024)

The case. On December 11, 2018, Whitney fired 17 rounds from an AK-47 into an occupied house. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder, armed criminal action, first-degree assault on two people he knew were there, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage, and of first-degree assault counts for the other people in the house, including five children. He received life without parole for the murder, and consecutive terms on the other counts.

The panel and the vote. Judge Bates, Judge Goodman, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • The murder, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon and property damage convictions, and the two assault convictions for the people he knew were present, were affirmed. The ruling that allowed a YouTube video into evidence was upheld.
  • First-degree assault requires that the defendant know the victim was present. For nine of the assault counts, the State conceded there was no evidence he knew others were in the house (State v. Whalen, Mo. banc 2001).
  • The jury had found he acted recklessly, so the court directed a conviction on the lesser charge of fourth-degree assault, a class A misdemeanor, on each of those nine counts, and sentencing within the jury’s recommendation.

The court affirmed in part, and reversed and sent the case back for resentencing on nine counts. He remains in prison for life without parole.

Ruling 15: A trafficking and resisting arrest conviction (State v. Dill, July 16, 2024)

The case. Carl Dill was convicted of first-degree trafficking, for 88 grams of methamphetamine another person possessed, and of resisting arrest. He argued the evidence was not enough on either count. This opinion is the full court’s, reissued after the Supreme Court sent the case back.

The panel and the vote. The full court (per curiam). Judge Hamner concurred. Judge Bates concurred with a separate opinion. Judge Growcock concurred on trafficking and dissented on resisting arrest.

What the court held, and the dissent.

  • A person is responsible for another’s possession if he approved and aided it, and a jury could find that from the circumstances.
  • A jury could also infer from the circumstances that he knew an arrest was being made when he fled.
  • The dissent would have reversed the resisting-arrest conviction because the evidence did not show the deputy was arresting him, or that he knew it.

The court affirmed both convictions.

Ruling 16: Child-rape convictions and inadmissible hearsay (State v. Mulverhill, May 30, 2024)

The case. Mulverhill was convicted of child rape and molestation. At trial the State introduced hearsay statements about the abuse. On appeal he argued that this was error, and that testimony improperly bolstered the victim.

The panel and the vote. Judge Bates, Judge Sheffield, and Judge Hamner. Judge Hamner wrote the opinion, and both concurred.

What the court held.

  • The State conceded the hearsay was inadmissible. The court agreed that was an error.
  • The error did not cause prejudice, because the victim testified to the same matters in court and was cross-examined on them.
  • The court declined plain-error review of the bolstering claim.

The court affirmed. This is a ruling we chose by a fixed rule.

What the court could have ruled

The ruling as issued and a real alternative. Not our conclusion.

For each ruling, the alternative below is one that a judge, a trial court, or a party actually argued. Neither column is our conclusion. That comes in the next section. Where a ruling drew a dissent, the dissent is the alternative.

Frieden Farms (2026)

What the court ruled

  • The deferred-price changes lacked consideration, so the claims are dealer and storage claims.
  • The bond covers them.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Frieden Farms)

  • Treat the deferral agreements as valid, so the claims fall outside the dealer bond.

Support for the alternative: Frieden Farms’ arguments on appeal and the trial court’s judgment.

Butler County EMS v. Proctor (2026)

What the court ruled

  • Dismiss the wrongful-death claims with prejudice for late service.
  • Make the writ permanent.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the plaintiffs)

  • Leave the late-service question to the trial court on appeal, or allow the plaintiffs to cure it.

Support for the alternative: the plaintiffs’ argument and the trial court’s refusal to dismiss.

State ex rel. Varney v. City of Edgar Springs (2026)

What the court ruled

  • Vacate the writ: no returned execution, and a broad order goes beyond a ministerial duty.
  • Leave open claims under § 513.410.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Ms. Varney and the trial court)

  • Order the city to pay what it could from its accounts, as the trial court did, because the debt is undisputed and the city had put a levy on the ballot and lost.

Support for the alternative: the trial court’s writ and Ms. Varney’s argument that waiting for an execution would be futile.

Hartwell v. Baker (2026)

What the court ruled

  • No substantial evidence of alarm, so the order is vacated.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Hartwell and the trial court)

  • Affirm, because the trial court heard the evidence and found Hartwell was alarmed.

Support for the alternative: the trial court’s finding. Hartwell filed no brief, so the court had no argument from that side.

State v. Mutter (2026)

What the court ruled

  • No plain error, because defense counsel elicited the testimony.
  • Convictions affirmed.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Mutter)

  • Review the testimony about shooting through a wall for plain error and consider whether it prejudiced the verdict.

Support for the alternative: Mutter’s plain-error argument.

Joyce v. State (2025)

What the court ruled

  • The claims fail: the mother’s testimony was cumulative.
  • Denial affirmed.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Joyce)

  • Find the lawyers’ failure to call her mother prejudicial and grant a hearing.

Support for the alternative: Joyce’s ineffective-assistance points.

Gray v. State (2025)

What the court ruled

  • Hearing required on two claims.
  • The juror claim fails.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the State)

  • Affirm the denial of the motion without a hearing.

Support for the alternative: the motion court’s denial.

Walton v. Treasurer, Second Injury Fund (2025)

What the court ruled

  • The enhanced part of a prior award does not count toward the 50-week threshold.

Support for this ruling: all seven judges of the court.

What it could have ruled (Walton)

  • Count the prior enhanced award toward the threshold.

Support for the alternative: Walton’s argument on appeal.

Doe v. First Baptist Church of Pierce City (2025)

What the court ruled

  • Summary judgment for the church under Gibson v. Brewer.

Support for this ruling: Judge West, Judge Hamner and Judge Growcock.

What it could have ruled (Doe)

  • Let the negligence claim go to trial.

Support for the alternative: Doe’s argument. Only the Supreme Court can overrule Gibson.

State v. Yaggy (2025)

What the court ruled

  • Error waived; credibility is for the jury.
  • Convictions affirmed.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Yaggy)

  • Treat the error as preserved and review it.

Support for the alternative: Yaggy’s points on appeal.

State v. Parry (2024)

What the court ruled

  • Exclusion of other-allegation evidence was proper.
  • The court may consider his refusal to take part in the sentencing assessment.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Parry)

  • Allow the evidence of the victim’s other allegations, or treat his refusal as not a proper factor at sentencing.

Support for the alternative: Parry’s points on appeal.

Henry County and Taney County v. Dunn (2024)

What the court ruled

  • The statute does not make the sheriff personally liable.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the counties)

  • Hold the former sheriff liable for the boarding costs, as the trial court did.

Support for the alternative: the counties’ claim and the trial court’s judgment.

Atchley v. Highways Commission and Apex Paving (2024)

What the court ruled

  • No duty on the undisputed facts.
  • Summary judgment affirmed.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Atchley)

  • Send the duty question to a jury.

Support for the alternative: Atchley’s argument on appeal.

State v. Whitney (2024)

What the court ruled

  • Murder and related convictions stand; the video was admissible.
  • Nine first-degree assault counts reduced to fourth-degree assault.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (the State)

  • Affirm all counts, treating the shots into an occupied house as enough for every assault count. The State itself did not defend that on appeal.

Support for the alternative: the jury’s verdicts. The State conceded the knowledge element.

State v. Dill (2024)

What the court ruled

  • Both convictions stand: the jury could infer his knowledge.

Support for this ruling: the court, with Judge Hamner concurring.

What it could have ruled (Judge Growcock, dissenting in part)

  • Reverse the resisting-arrest conviction because the evidence did not show an arrest.

Support for the alternative: Judge Growcock’s dissent.

State v. Mulverhill (2024)

What the court ruled

  • The hearsay was error, but harmless because the victim testified to the same matters.

Support for this ruling: the court, with both colleagues joining.

What it could have ruled (Mulverhill)

  • Find the hearsay and bolstering together prejudicial, and order a new trial.

Support for the alternative: Mulverhill’s argument and the State’s concession of error.

Act for Missouri's View

Everything in this box is our opinion.

Act for Missouri's position: retain Judge Hamner.

Retention is a vote on whether a judge has earned another 12-year term. We put the burden on the judge to show that he has, and we can only weigh what we were able to verify. When the evidence is thin, we lean toward not retaining. His record is short, about two and a half years, so we read a large share of what he has done: 16 rulings, 14 that he wrote and 2 he joined, on a wide range of subjects. Below, we say for each one whether the law required the result, allowed either result, or did not support it, and where we might have gone the other way.

How we label a ruling

Law required this result We may be disappointed in the outcome, but the judge was right to rule as he or she did.

Law allowed either result Both readings have real support. The judge's choice shows how he or she weighs competing principles. It is not an error.

Law did not support this result The judge went beyond what the law allowed.

Frieden Farms (2026)Law required this result

Our reading. A promise to wait for payment, with nothing given in return, is not an enforceable change to a contract. That is an old rule of contract law, and the bond statutes then cover the claims as written.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. The case has the Attorney General’s name on it, but it is a question about bonds and contracts, and the result follows the rule.

Butler County EMS v. Proctor (2026)Law required this result Law allowed either result

Our reading. The 180-day service rule is in the statute, and the plaintiffs did not meet it. That part was required. Whether to allow the plaintiffs to amend the negligent-infliction count was left to the trial court, which the law allowed.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. Families who bring wrongful-death claims may find a service deadline harsh, but the deadline is the legislature’s, and changing it is the legislature’s job.

State ex rel. Varney v. City of Edgar Springs (2026)Law required this result Law allowed either result

Our reading. The statute requires an execution to be returned unsatisfied first, and she conceded none had issued. That part was required. How broad a common-law writ against a city can be was a judgment call. The trial court’s order reached the city’s general and police funds and its future revenue, and the city’s accounts held about $58,000 against a $79,716 debt.

Where we differ. We are disappointed that someone who won a judgment against a city for violating her rights is still unpaid. The court did not say the city owes her nothing. It left her statute path open. The fix is a new execution and, if needed, a change in the law so that a city cannot avoid a judgment for years. We do not call this a poor decision.

Hartwell v. Baker (2026)Law allowed either result

Our reading. A stalking order requires alarm, which means fear of physical harm. He found no substantial evidence of it. A judge who deferred more to the trial court’s view of the witnesses could have affirmed.

Where we differ. We do not differ with his approach. An order of protection restricts a person’s freedom and carries lasting consequences, and holding the petitioner to the statute’s test is reasonable. We note that Hartwell filed no brief.

State v. Mutter (2026)Law required this result

Our reading. A defendant cannot ask the court to find plain error in testimony his own lawyer brought out. The jury also acquitted him of the charge the testimony related to.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. The convictions for assault and rape stand on the record.

Joyce v. State (2025)Law required this result

Our reading. To win an ineffective-assistance claim, a defendant must show the lawyer’s choice made a difference. Testimony that only repeats what others said does not.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. The standard is a settled one and he applied it.

Gray v. State (2025)Law required this result

Our reading. A prisoner is entitled to a hearing when the motion alleges facts that, if true, would warrant relief and the record does not refute them. He applied that rule to two claims and denied a third.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. He did not rule for the prisoner on everything. He sent back what the record required and rejected the rest.

Walton v. Treasurer, Second Injury Fund (2025)Law required this result

Our reading. The statute sets a 50-week threshold, and the court read it as measuring the disability itself, not the added portion. All seven judges agreed.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. A worker may find the result harsh, but the threshold is the legislature’s.

Doe v. First Baptist Church of Pierce City (2025)Law required this result

Our reading. A lower court cannot depart from the Supreme Court’s Gibson v. Brewer. The panel followed it, and the Supreme Court took the case once and sent it back.

Where we differ. We are disappointed in the outcome for a person who says she was abused, but the ruling is legally correct for this court. Whether churches should be shielded this way is a question for the Supreme Court and the voters, not this panel.

State v. Yaggy (2025)Law required this result

Our reading. A defendant who puts on evidence waives any error in the earlier denial of acquittal, and weighing evidence is for the jury.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. He applied settled rules.

State v. Parry (2024)Law required this result

Our reading. Missouri’s rape-shield rule bars most evidence of other allegations or conduct, and the court found none of its narrow exceptions applied. A judge may weigh a refusal to take part in a sentencing assessment.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. The sentences are severe, and they are within the range the legislature set.

Henry County and Taney County v. Dunn (2024)Law required this result

Our reading. The statute puts the duty on the county, and its words do not make a sheriff personally liable.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. A county that paid for boarding may be frustrated, but the statute is plain.

Atchley v. Highways Commission and Apex Paving (2024)Law required this result

Our reading. On the undisputed facts, the contractor owed no common-law duty. Summary judgment is proper when no duty exists.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. We read the facts as the opinion presents them and did not find a dispute about them.

State v. Whitney (2024)Law required this result Law allowed either result

Our reading. First-degree assault requires that the defendant know the victim was present. The State conceded it had no evidence of that for nine counts, and the court followed State v. Whalen and directed the lesser conviction the jury had necessarily found. That part was required. The video ruling was a judgment call within the trial court’s discretion.

Where we differ. This is a hard ruling to read. A man who fired 17 rounds into an occupied house with five children inside remains in prison for life without parole, and he was convicted on the murder count, the armed criminal action count, and the two assault counts for the people he knew were there. The nine counts were reduced because the State could not prove he knew of the others. The court did not decide how serious the crime was. Whether Missouri’s assault law should cover reckless shooting into an occupied home is the legislature’s decision, not the court’s. We do not differ with Judge Hamner.

State v. Dill (2024)Law allowed either result

Our reading. A jury may infer knowledge from the circumstances. The majority found enough to infer that Dill knew an arrest was being made, and one colleague, Judge Growcock, found too little. Judge Hamner joined the majority.

Where we differ. We do not differ with Judge Hamner. Both readings were serious, which is why we call it a judgment call. He joined an opinion of the full court and wrote nothing separate.

State v. Mulverhill (2024)Law required this result Law allowed either result

Our reading. The State conceded the hearsay was inadmissible, and the court agreed. Whether the error mattered turned on whether it changed the outcome. The victim testified to the same matters and was cross-examined, so the court held it did not. A judge could have weighed the prejudice differently.

Where we differ. We agree with the result. An error that did not affect the outcome should not erase a conviction for child rape, and the court did not excuse the error. It said what it was and why it did not matter.

What this adds up to. We reviewed 16 rulings. In 14 of them the main holding was one the law required, and in 6 the law allowed either result in whole or in part (some had both). In none of them did we find that the law did not support the result. One drew a dissent in part from a colleague, and it was a serious reading of the law. His record shows a judge who follows the text, applies the standard of review, and reaches results that do not line up with one kind of party.

Where we might have gone the other way. We disagree with none of his rulings as errors of law. Two give us pause. In Varney, we are disappointed that a woman who won a judgment is still unpaid, though the statute and the common law supported his result. In Whitney, the result is hard to read, though it follows from what the State conceded and from the assault statute as the Supreme Court has read it.

What limits this. He has been on this court since March 2024. His record is short, and 16 rulings is a sample of about 54 he wrote. We chose rulings by a fixed rule for three years, and added others to cover cases that looked politically sensitive. We screened by case name, and we cannot rule out one we missed. We do not rely on the committee’s recommendation, which was to retain every judge it reviewed this year.

Why we land on retain. Our standard puts the burden on the judge, and we lean toward not retaining when the record is thin. A two-and-a-half-year record is short, but this one is not thin: it spans criminal, civil, government and administrative law, includes rulings against the State, against counties and cities, and for them, and shows no ruling that went beyond the law. If you weigh a short record more heavily than we do, that is a reasonable position.

A disclosure. Act for Missouri opposed the 2024 Amendment 3 and opposes the 2026 Amendment 3 on this year’s ballot. Neither measure bears on the rulings above. We say so in case it matters to how you read the rest of this page.

What to do with this. Read the record and the alternatives first. The official committee evaluation is linked below. If you weigh the same facts differently, that is a reasonable position, and the vote is yours.

Sources

Every fact in The Record comes from the court opinions or official pages below. Read them yourself.

Last updated October 9, 2026.

Share this post

Facebook Share on X
← Back to Homepage