State of Missouri v. Douglas E. Oerly, 446 S.W.3d 304

On Sept. 21, 2012, Wal‑Mart security observed Douglas Oerly take a $140 calculator, remove it from packaging, conceal it in his pants, and attempt to leave without paying; he was detained and found with the calculator and juice.
Paramedics detected high blood sugar; Oerly refused on‑scene treatment and was processed at the police department, where Officer Riley observed him alert and oriented.
Oerly, a longtime diabetic, testified he was attempting to self‑manage diabetes due to lack of insulin, had previous hypo episodes that produced disorientation and inadvertent shoplifting, and claimed he had no memory of events before drinking the juice.
Oerly sought to introduce medical records showing hospitalization on Sept. 22–24 (and other dates) to prove the seriousness of his diabetic episode; the trial court excluded records from Sept. 22 onward as irrelevant.
The bench trial resulted in a conviction for misdemeanor stealing; court announced verdict and sentenced the same day, without waiting the 15‑day period for new‑trial motions.
On appeal Oerly argued (1) the premature entry of judgment violated Supreme Court Rule 29.11(c) and required dismissal, and (2) exclusion of Sept. 22 medical records was erroneous and prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Oerly)	Held
Whether a judgment entered before the 15‑day new‑trial period expired is void and requires dismissal	Rule 29.11(c) was violated, but the State did not argue the judgment was void; enforcement of the Rule is required	The premature judgment is void under prior Western District precedent (Besendorfer) and the appeal must be dismissed	Judgment is not void under Webb; Rule 29.11(c) violation makes the judgment voidable, not jurisdictionally void; Oerly waived the claim and court may decide merits
Whether exclusion of medical records from Sept. 22 (hospitalization) was reversible error	Records from dates after the offense were irrelevant to whether Oerly was hypoglycemic and disoriented at the time of the theft	Records showing hospitalization corroborate the severity of his diabetic condition and state of mind	Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion: the Sept. 22 records showed hyperglycemia and alert/oriented status and failed to support Oerly’s hypo/disorientation defense; any error was not prejudicial

State v. Besendorfer, 372 S.W.3d 914 (Mo. App. W.D.) (prior Western District holding a premature judgment was void)
State v. Jacobs, 421 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. App. S.D. en banc) (holding premature criminal judgment is voidable, not void)
J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc) (framework for distinguishing jurisdictional defects from voidable error)
Goins v. Goins, 406 S.W.3d 886 (Mo. banc) (void‑judgment doctrine narrow; jurisdictional limits)
Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc) (post‑conviction timing rules and enforcement)
In re Adoption of C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. banc) (statutory rule violations do not necessarily divest subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Spicer v. Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust, 336 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. banc) (time limits on modifying final judgments can divest jurisdiction)
State v. Clark, 364 S.W.3d 540 (Mo. banc) (standard for prejudicial error in evidentiary rulings)