{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"david-thompson","displayName":"David Thompson","totalCases":3},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed112699:2025-04-22","opinionId":"99e44bf0-ec80-5505-a811-9edee82b3cf2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-112699","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. David Thompson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112699","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Thompson appealed his conviction for abandonment of a corpse, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's denial of his request for grand jurors to attend trial. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because Thompson failed to provide a complete trial transcript, which is necessary for meaningful review of the issues raised. The court noted that the incomplete record prevented it from evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence or the merits of the grand juror attendance request.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219855","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-112699","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"mo:sc100790:2025-04-15","opinionId":"b333a858-e941-551b-8895-ad73591ae53e","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-100790","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. David Thompson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100790","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Thompson appealed his conviction for fourth-degree domestic assault and violating an order of protection, which arose from an incident where he struck his ex-boyfriend with a vehicle. Thompson claimed the circuit court erred by denying his right to counsel at a preliminary hearing, rejecting his proposed lesser-included offense instruction, and submitting a corrective instruction after the jury returned inconsistent verdicts. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that all of Thompson's claims lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-100790","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111738:2024-09-03","opinionId":"984f6cf4-fef2-5c21-b598-b09db26474b0","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-111738","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Thompson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111738","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Thompson appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the fourth degree and violation of an order of protection. He argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for lack of counsel at his preliminary hearing, rejecting his proposed lesser-included jury instruction, and giving a curative instruction after inconsistent verdicts, which he claimed violated double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no prejudice from the lack of counsel, no manifest injustice regarding the jury instruction, and no double jeopardy violation because the inconsistent verdicts were not accepted before the jury was discharged.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-thompson-appellant-111738","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"}]}