Gordon v. Gordon

739 S.W.2d 728, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4790
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 23, 1987
DocketNo. 14982
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 739 S.W.2d 728 (Gordon v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gordon v. Gordon, 739 S.W.2d 728, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4790 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Plaintiff sought to recover child support from defendant under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law, §§ 454.010 — 454.360, RSMo 1986. Defendant answered and trial was set for October 7, 1986. Thereafter, on September 16, 1986, defendant requested a continuance from that trial setting. The trial court set a hearing for October 6,1986 on the motion requesting a continuance. Defendant did not appear at that hearing nor did he appear at the time of the trial. Judgment for child support was entered against him on October 7, 1986.

On appeal defendant contends that a continuance should have been granted because he could not appear on October 7, 1986, as it was “The Last Great Day, which is a sabbath.” In his motion for a continuance defendant indicates that the “Last Great Day” is a part of the “Feast of Tabernacles”. Page 4 of defendant’s brief says, “In 1986, this festival was from September 29, at sundown, to October 7, at sundown.” Page 5 of his brief states, “The Feast of Tabernacles lasts seven (7) days through October 6, but October 6 is not a Holy Day, it is a festival day.” His motion for continuance stated that: “Feast of Tabernacles. Begins sunset Sept. 28, through sunset Oct. 7th, 1986. Lev. 23:33-44.” Attached to his motion and made “a part thereof is a brochure explaining the dates of the holy days.”

That attachment does not indicate to us that October 7, 1986 was a sabbath. The only date mentioned in it is “Sunday, September 29th”. The attachment could be construed as indicating that the feast started that evening. The last time September 29 was on a Sunday was in 1985. Our research indicates that in 1985 the Feast of Tabernacles began on September 29 and ended on October 7, and in 1986 it began on October 17 and ended on October 25. See 1 Encyclopedia Judaica 142 (1972). The attachment to the motion is set forth below.1

[730]*730Defendant states in his brief “that the truth behind this case is religious persecution of the Appellant as the complaint in this case is not true, nor are the children in this case mine.” Defendant says that he was given four possible trial dates, September 16, September 25, September 30, or October 7, 1986. He asserts that “[t]hese dates coincide perfectly with the Holy Days, and it is no accident that Judge Holstein picked these four dates, then chose October 7 as trial date. It was picked deliberately, over and above my objections and against my will, by Judge Holstein, with Prosecuting Attorney John Jacobs [who represented the plaintiff], because they are Masonic brothers and have a secret oath to protect and aid one another.”

Defendant states that as Masons the trial judge and the prosecuting attorney, the sheriff, a state trooper and a federal judge have conspired to “perpetuate religious persecution” of him. He contends that because of an oath that they have taken, he cannot receive “any attendable trial" date from those officials.2

There is nothing in the record which establishes that the persons claimed are Masons or that they have conspired in any manner to deny religious or other rights to defendant. This court is not prepared to judicially notice any of the claimed memberships or the consequences of such membership. Judicial notice must be exercised cautiously. If there is doubt about the notoriety of a fact, judicial recognition of it must be declined. Endicott v. St. Regis Investment Co., 443 S.W.2d 122, 126 (Mo.1969).

After the trial court set the motion for continuance for October 6, 1986, defendant moved that the motion hearing be rescheduled because it occurred during the Feast of Tabernacles and “the punishment for not keeping the Feast is death by stoning.”3 Defendant further alleged in his motion to reschedule the motion hearing date that he had “been commanded by God to keep this Feast under penalty of death and not to do so would be treasonous to [731]*731God.” How and when or by what authority he was so commanded is not explained.

On October 7, 1986, when this matter came on for trial, the judge was informed by plaintiffs attorney that defendant “spent the entire day yesterday in federal district court in Springfield.” In his brief defendant acknowledges that was correct, but states that “October 6 is a festival day that I would not spend in court if I could prevent it, or if it wasn’t an emergency.” He states that the hearing in federal court was an emergency caused by the arrest of an acquaintance of his the previous week.

Defendant claimed that he could not appear in circuit court on October 6 due to the penalty of death, but has acknowledged that he appeared in federal court that day, apparently without punishment. This, together with the variances in the dates of the Feast of Tabernacles as contained in defendant’s motion for continuance and his brief, and our research on those dates, casts doubt upon defendant’s claim that October 7, 1986 was a holy day and was of such significance that he could not have appeared. Moreover, even if it was a holy day defendant was not absolutely entitled to a different trial date.

When possible to do so without creating a serious disruption to the proceedings or the court’s schedule, a court should accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs. Unfortunately, it is not always feasible to accommodate those beliefs.

“Our heterogeneous population embraces a multitude of different religions, sects, and cults having a great many days which are regarded as sacred or of special significance. It would not be possible for the courts to defer to them all without undue interference with the administration of justice.” State v. Rosencrans, 24 Wash.2d 775, 167 P.2d 170, 171 (1946). A person’s moral or religious principles cannot be allowed to interfere with the court’s proceedings. Id. See also Philips v. Gratz, 2 Pen. & W. 412, 416 (Pa.1831) (“religious scruples ... will receive all the indulgence that is compatible with the business of government”, but continuance from sabbath not a matter of right).

The grant or denial of a continuance lies within the legitimate discretion of the trial court. Chapman v. St. Louis County Bank, 649 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Mo.App.1983). It has not been established that the trial court abused its discretion here.

The judgment is affirmed.

HOGAN, FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Martin
388 S.W.3d 528 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)
Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Inc.
13 A.3d 1227 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2011)
Carr v. Grimes
852 S.W.2d 345 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
Laclede Electric Cooperative v. Booker
804 S.W.2d 50 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
739 S.W.2d 728, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-gordon-moctapp-1987.