Commonwealth v. Roth
567 S.W.3d 591
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- John Roth Jr. was convicted by a district court jury of second-degree cruelty to animals (Class A misdemeanor); judgment imposed six months jail and a $500 fine.
- Roth appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted discretionary review and reversed, finding insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea and directing entry of a verdict of acquittal.
- The Commonwealth sought rehearing and then discretionary review by the Kentucky Supreme Court; its filings repeatedly contained procedural defects (wrong court in title, mislabeled petition, missing attachments, incorrect number of copies) that were corrected when flagged.
- Before the Supreme Court, the Commonwealth's brief failed to provide any citations to the trial record in its Statement of the Case and Argument, relying instead on the lower courts' opinions.
- Roth moved to strike the Commonwealth's brief and dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with CR 76.12(4)(c)(iv) and (v); the majority struck the brief and dismissed the appeal under CR 76.12(8)(a).
- A dissent argued the sanction was disproportionate given the short trial record, prior opinions citing record locations, and alternative remedies (deficiency order, sanctions, show-cause) the Court could have used.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellant must provide "ample" pinpoint citations to the trial record in its appellate brief (CR 76.12(4)(c)(iv) & (v)) | Roth: Appellant must supply specific record citations; failure permits striking brief and dismissing the appeal. | Commonwealth: Relied on lower-court opinions and did not cite the trial record; argued (implicitly) that the existing record and lower opinions suffice. | Court: Appellate briefs must include ample pinpoint citations to the record; Commonwealth's brief lacked any such citations and was properly stricken. |
| Whether striking a brief and dismissing the appeal is an appropriate exercise of discretion under CR 76.12(8)(a) | Roth: Repeated procedural noncompliance supports striking and dismissal; Commonwealth offered no reply brief to cure defects. | Commonwealth (as argued in dissent): Dismissal was disproportionate; Court could use lesser sanctions or permit correction given the brief trial record and prior dispositive opinions. | Court: Dismissal is within discretion and warranted here due to repeated failures and absence of correction; dissent would have used lesser remedies. |
| Whether citations to lower-court opinions can substitute for direct citation to the trial record when sufficiency of the evidence is at issue | Roth: No — appellate court must review the trial record itself, especially where the issue is evidentiary sufficiency. | Commonwealth: Cited lower opinions that discuss the record (implicit argument that that should suffice). | Court: Citations to lower-court opinions alone are insufficient; the reviewing court must be given direct pointers to the trial record. |
| Whether the Court should consider arguments despite procedural defects when a good-faith effort was made | Roth: Good-faith efforts are considered, but here no adequate effort to comply with CR 76.12(4)(c)(iv) & (v) is shown. | Commonwealth: (Implied) Past practice of Court to consider briefs where good-faith effort exists; case history suggested ability to locate record. | Court: Where no good-faith compliance is shown and rules are materially violated, the Court may decline to address such arguments; here it did. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694 (Ky. App. 2010) (procedural rules serve as guides and enforcement is essential)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 551 S.W.2d 557 (Ky. 1977) (importance of enforcing procedural rules)
- Mayo v. Commonwealth, 322 S.W.3d 41 (Ky. 2010) (pinpoint citations are a substantial requirement under CR 76.12)
- Sanderson v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2009) (court may strike brief or dismiss for CR 76.12 violations)
- Goncalves v. Commonwealth, 404 S.W.3d 180 (Ky. 2013) (declining to address arguments that fail to comply with CR 76.12)
- Daugherty v. Commonwealth, 467 S.W.3d 222 (Ky. 2015) (courts may disregard arguments lacking required record citations)
- Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Housing Authority, 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004) (declining to address arguments failing to comply with appellate rules)