Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court has affirmed multiple municipal ordinance violations against a Florissant resident while vacating most of the fines imposed, finding the city failed to properly submit evidence supporting those penalties.
In a decision filed April 28, the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District upheld the conviction of Jubin Lee on four ordinance violations, including animal nuisance, animal-at-large, failure to obtain a pet license and public nuisance, but reversed and remanded the case in part, ordering that three of the fines be vacated due to insufficient evidentiary support.
The appellate court concluded that while the trial court correctly found Lee guilty on all charges, it committed “plain error” by imposing fines for three of the violations without the city introducing the corresponding penalty ordinances into evidence. As a result, only a $25 fine tied to the animal-at-large violation remains intact, along with court costs.
The case stems from a series of incidents in 2023 involving complaints about chickens kept on Lee’s property in Florissant. According to court records, city officers responded to reports of a crowing rooster, chickens running loose, and a large pile of mulch or wood chips in Lee’s front yard.
At trial, officers testified that Lee had not obtained the required permit to keep chickens, that her animals were observed outside her property, and that the rooster’s crowing created a disturbance.
Additionally, officials cited the accumulation of a six-foot-high pile of mulch in her yard as a public nuisance after she failed to remove it following notice from the city.
Lee challenged her convictions on multiple grounds, including arguments that the trial court improperly excluded portions of the municipal code she claimed supported her defense, misapplied ordinances and failed to rule on certain motions.
The appellate court rejected those claims, finding that the trial court properly relied on certified ordinances submitted into evidence and correctly excluded uncertified copies Lee attempted to introduce.
On the nuisance charge related to the rooster, the appellate court found sufficient evidence supported the conviction, including testimony from an officer who described the noise as loud and disruptive, along with prior neighbor complaints.
The court also upheld the public nuisance conviction, concluding that the large mulch pile posed potential safety and health concerns and fell within the ordinance’s broad definition of prohibited conditions.
Similarly, the court found adequate evidence for the animal-at-large violation, noting testimony that chickens were seen in the street and neighboring yards.
In its final ruling, the appellate court affirmed Lee’s convictions on all four counts and upheld the $25 fine for the animal-at-large violation but ordered the remaining fines to be removed, partially reversing the lower court’s judgment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113228
