St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

state v teter 665 sw3d 306

This authority appears in 20 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:state-v-teter-665-sw3d-306
Citation Sample
State v. Teter, 665 S.W.3d 306
Cases Shown
20
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to cases citing this authority

These links route legal-research traffic from this authority profile into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the authority itself or the cited cases map to a practical client issue.

Criminal LawCivil LitigationReal EstateCorporate LawFamily Law

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to state v teter 665 sw3d 306?

This authority profile is public case-law research. If the authority connects to your claim or dispute, Ott Law Firm can help evaluate evidence, deadlines, and next steps.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Citation Treatment

cited

18

followed

2

Cases Citing state v teter 665 sw3d 306

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 17, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.

followed

Citation: State v. Teter, 665 S.W.3d 306

The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation