Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)

Citation
Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)
Parent Document
Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
2018-02-06

Other Sections in This Document (127)

Full Text

941 chars
The Department is correct that Instructions No. 12 and No. 13 do not expressly require the jury to find that Mignone complained of sexual harassment by Fagan or Nuckols.3 The omission of *38that element is not necessarily reversible error, however. "Instructional errors are reversed only if the error resulted in prejudice that materially affects the merits of the action." Hervey , 379 S.W.3d at 159 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "There can be no prejudicial error where an instruction omits an element that is not in dispute." Citizens Bank of Appleton City v. Schapeler, 869 S.W.2d 120, 129 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) ; accord , Boggs ex rel. Boggs v. Lay , 164 S.W.3d 4, 20 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) ("When a fact material to a plaintiff's case is conceded or undisputed, its inclusion under an approved jury instruction is not mandatory."; quoting Sheehan v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. , 103 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) ).