City of Joplin v. Klein

Decision Date21 July 2011
Docket NumberNo. SD 30716.,SD 30716.
Citation345 S.W.3d 351
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesCITY OF JOPLIN, Missouri, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.Kevin Kaye KLEIN, Defendant–Appellant.

345 S.W.3d 351

CITY OF JOPLIN, Missouri, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
Kevin Kaye KLEIN, Defendant–Appellant.

No. SD 30716.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

July 21, 2011.


[345 S.W.3d 353]

R. Deryl Edwards, Joplin, MO, for Appellant.Tyler Strodtman, Joplin, MO, for Respondent.GARY W. LYNCH, Judge.

Kevin K. Klein (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for the violation of two City of Joplin municipal ordinances in a judgment entered by the Jasper County Circuit Court following a trial de novo. Finding insufficient evidence supporting the imposition of a penalty for the violations, we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

The evidence reveals that on the night of November 4, 2008, Defendant harassed his two neighbors from the sidewalk in front of their house about the presidential election results. Defendant called the neighbors “dykes,” threatened harm, and tried to provoke a fight. Defendant's neighbors called 911, and Defendant was subsequently arrested. He was charged under Joplin City Ordinance § 82–73 for disturbing the peace.

Ten days later, in a separate and unrelated incident, Defendant called 911 and reported that a male in a white Cadillac had pointed a gun at him. Police responded and searched the vehicle and premises but failed to find any weapon. After informing Defendant that no weapons were found, police told him to refrain from calling the police unless there was an actual emergency. As the police began to leave, Defendant again called 911 and reported that a person was on the front porch of the residence with a shotgun. The officer who received the dispatch was parked within view of the front porch and did not see anyone on it. When that officer walked back to Defendant, he found Defendant on the phone and asked whom he was speaking with. Defendant told the officer that he was speaking with a friend. The officer then asked Defendant to hand him the phone. After the officer saw 911 on the screen, he arrested Defendant for misuse of 911. Defendant was charged under Joplin City Ordinance § 82–17 for misuse of the emergency telephone system.

After both charges were apparently consolidated into one case in the municipal division of the Circuit Court, Defendant was found guilty of both charges. He then filed a single application for trial de novo of both convictions. Following a bench trial de novo, Defendant was found guilty of both charges and fined four hundred dollars on each charge. Defendant thereafter received a special order from this Court permitting the late filing of a notice of appeal; this appeal ensued.

Standard of Review

While considered a civil action, municipal ordinance violations are said to be “quasi-criminal in nature.” City of Webster Groves v. Erickson, 789 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Mo.App.1990) (quoting Strode v. Dir. of Revenue, 724 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Mo. banc 1987)). This is so because the rules of criminal procedure apply to the prosecution of ordinance violations. Erickson, 789 S.W.2d at 826. Additionally, ordinance provisions that impose penalties “are strictly construed against the municipality and will not be extended by implication.” City of Kansas City v. McGary, 218 S.W.3d 449, 452 (Mo.App.2006) (citing Levin v. Carpenter, 332 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Mo.1960)).

[345 S.W.3d 354]

Upon review of a municipal ordinance violation, we must affirm the trial court's decision unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. City of Strafford v. Croxdale, 272 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Mo.App.2008). “[T]he evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the municipality; all evidence and inferences to the contrary are to be disregarded.” City of University City v. MAJ Inv. Corp., 884 S.W.2d 306, 307 (Mo.App.1994) (citing St. Louis Cnty. v. Afshari, 817 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Mo.App.1991); City of Jackson v. Rapp, 700 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Mo.App.1985)).

Discussion

Defendant argues by motion that the municipal ordinances 82–17 and 82–73 should be stricken from the legal file and record on appeal because the City failed to timely offer the ordinances into evidence, in compliance with sections 490.240 or 479.250,1 and the ordinances were not admitted as evidence by the circuit court. Defendant further contends in his first point that the City failed to prove the contents of the municipal ordinances when it failed to properly admit the ordinances into evidence, as required by sections 490.240 or 479.250. As such, Defendant maintains that the trial court's findings of guilt should be reversed. We disagree.

“Municipal prosecution requires proof of the ordinances upon which the prosecution rests.” City of Kansas City v. Mullen, 690 S.W.2d 421, 422 (Mo.App.1985) (citing City of Lee's Summit v. Lawson, 612 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Mo.App.1981); City of Riverside v. Weddle, 544 S.W.2d 328, 330 (Mo.App.1976)). A conviction cannot stand without “proof of the existence and content of the ordinance defining the offense for which appellant was charged[.]” State v. Furne, 642 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Mo. banc 1982). Furthermore, a court may not take judicial notice of a municipal enactment that is not introduced properly into evidence. City of University City, 884 S.W.2d at 307; Duly v. Heflin, 873 S.W.2d 932, 935 (Mo.App.1994); Mullen, 690 S.W.2d at 422; City of Kansas City v. Rule, 680 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App.1984).

A city may prove its ordinances in one of three ways: (1) in accordance with the first clause of section 490.240, the prosecutor can enter a handwritten or printed certified copy of the ordinances into evidence, Mullen, 690 S.W.2d at 422–23; (2)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Stanton v. City of Skidmore
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 2021
    ...v. Cosic , 540 S.W.3d 461, 463 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also City of Joplin v. Klein , 345 S.W.3d 351, 354 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (describing methods by which the content of municipal ordinances may be proven).Ordinance No. 2018-POS-B was not p......
  • City of Bellefontaine Neighbors v. Carroll
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 2020
    ...require the same strictness as an information in a criminal prosecution." Heiman , 441 S.W.3d at 163 (citing City of Joplin v. Klein , 345 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) ). "An ... information is not necessarily insufficient for citing an incorrect statute" or ordinance. State v. Cusu......
  • St. Louis Cnty. v. Heiman, ED100518
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 2014
    ...substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. City of Joplin v. Klein, 345 S.W.3d 351, 354 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011). We take the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the municipality and ......
  • St. Louis Cnty. v. Heiman, ED 100518.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 2014
    ...substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. City of Joplin v. Klein, 345 S.W.3d 351, 354 (Mo.App. S.D.2011). We take the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the municipality and di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT