Under Rule 84.13(a), apart from questions concerning subject matter jurisdiction, appellate courts may not review allegations that were neither presented to nor expressly decided by the trial court. Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc., 456 S.W.3d 829, 839-40 (Mo. banc 2015); Rule 84.13. "Our rules for preservation of error for review are applied, not to enable the court to avoid the task of review, nor to make preservation of error difficult for the appellant, but, to enable the court—the trial court first, then the appellate court—to define the precise claim made by the defendant."
Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc., 456 S.W.3d 829, 839-40 (Mo. banc 2015); Rule 84.13. "Our rules for preservation of error for review are applied, not to enable the court to avoid the task of review, nor to make preservation of error difficult for the appellant, but, to enable the court-the trial court first, then the appellate court-to define the precise claim made by the defendant."
Under Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A), an appellant's point relied on must first identify the action of the trial court that is being challenged." Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc. , 456 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Mo. banc 2015). Rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2017).
Even when an evidentiary ruling is in error, this court will not set aside the jury's verdict unless that error likely changed the outcome of the case. Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc. , 456 S.W.3d 829, 842 (Mo.banc 2015). The trial court is vested with broad discretion to control discovery and to fashion a remedy to address any non-disclosure of evidence.
Absent some constitutional imperative not present here, it is not the role of this Court to grant relief on arguments that were not presented to or decided by the trial court. Barkley v. McKeever Enterprises, Inc. , 456 S.W.3d 829, 839 (Mo. banc 2015). This rule applies regardless of the merits of the new argument.
Standard of ReviewThe determination of whether a jury was instructed properly is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc., 456 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Mo. banc 2015) (citing Doe 1631 v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 8, 13 (Mo. banc 2013)). That review considers the evidence “in the light most favorable to the submission of the instruction, and if the instruction is supportable by any theory, then its submission is proper.”
"Appellate courts are merely courts of review for trial errors, and there can be no review of a matter which has not been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court." Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc. , 456 S.W.3d 829, 839 (Mo. banc 2015). In their post-trial brief, the Cities requested Wentzville’s postjudgment to be calculated pursuant to the 18-percent-per-annum interest ordinance.
See supra note 7 Further, this Court could not have determined that certain facts were admitted for any and all purposes because such is not our role Eivins’s argument would require us to interpret our decision in Eivins I as deciding issues beyond what was presented to the trial court " ‘Appellate courts are merely courts of review for trial errors, and there can be no review of a matter which has not been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court.' " Barkley v. McKeever Enters, Inc, 456 S.W.3d 829, 839 (Mo banc 2015) (quoting In re Adoption of C M B R, 332 S.W.3d 793, 814 (Mo banc 2011), abrogated on other grounds by S S S v. C V.S, 529 S.W 3d 811 (Mo banc 2017)). "[I]t simply is not the role of the court of appeals to grant relief on arguments that were not presented to or decided by the trial court."
"'Appellate courts are merely courts of review for trial errors, and there can be no review of a matter which has not been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court.'" Barkley v. McKeever Enters., Inc., 456 S.W.3d 829, 839 (Mo. banc 2015) (quoting In re Adoption of C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793, 814 (Mo. banc 2011), abrogated on other grounds by S.S.S. v. C.V.S., 529 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. banc 2017)). "[I]t simply is not the role of the court of appeals . . . to grant relief on arguments that were not presented to or decided by the trial court."
"[I]t is not the role of this Court to grant relief on arguments that were not presented to or decided by the trial court." BMJ Partners v. King's Beauty Distrib. Co. , 508 S.W.3d 175, 179 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Barkley v. McKeever Enterprises, Inc. , 456 S.W.3d 829, 839 (Mo. banc 2015) ); see alsoState ex rel. Nixon v. Am. Tobacco Co., Inc. , 34 S.W.3d 122, 129 (Mo. banc 2000) (recognizing that "[a]n issue that was never presented to or decided by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review"). "This rule applies regardless of the merits of the new argument."