Background
James Baker worked as a City of Maysville police officer from approximately August 2022 through May 2023. After community members complained about his conduct, the City suspended him without pay and later held a hearing attended by Baker and his counsel. The city council terminated Baker and notified Missouri’s Peace Officer Standards and Training Division that he had been discharged because of multiple complaints and harassment of females.
Baker sued the City and other respondents, asserting defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and forced execution of a contract of adhesion. The circuit court dismissed the case with prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Appeals struck Baker’s initial brief for failing to comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 and gave him fifteen days to submit a corrected brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because Baker’s amended brief still substantially violated Rule 84.04. The appendix included complaints, photographs, correspondence, agency materials, and City memoranda that were not part of the appellate record and, in several instances, had not been presented to the circuit court. Including those materials in an appendix did not make them part of the record or permit the appellate court to consider them.
The amended brief also lacked the specific record citations required in its statement of facts and argument. In addition, Baker’s fourth point relied on improperly combined distinct challenges to the dismissal of several separate claims, making the point multifarious and preserving nothing for appellate review. Because reviewing the claims would have required the court to search the record and construct arguments for Baker, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of his underlying claims.
Key Takeaways
- An appendix cannot expand the appellate record, and an appellate court will not consider documents that were not before the trial court.
- Rule 84.04 requires specific record and page citations for factual assertions in both the statement of facts and the argument.
- A single point relied on may not combine multiple independent claims of error, and substantial briefing defects can result in dismissal of the entire appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Missouri’s appellate briefing rules are mandatory, even when the court gives an appellant an opportunity to correct an initially deficient brief. Attorneys must ensure that every factual assertion is tied to the authorized record and that each point relied on separately identifies the challenged ruling, legal reason for error, and case-specific basis for reversal.
The court did not decide whether Baker’s employment-related claims were legally sufficient. The dismissal rested entirely on appellate briefing deficiencies, leaving the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice undisturbed.