Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CHRIS EUGENE WILLIAM COURTOIS Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
chris-eugene-william-courtois
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving CHRIS EUGENE WILLIAM COURTOIS

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jun 25, 2019

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. CHRIS EUGENE WILLIAM COURTOIS, Appellant

Appellant

Appellant Chris Eugene William Courtois was convicted of sex crimes against a six-year-old victim. On appeal, he challenged the admission of propensity evidence regarding an uncharged sex act against another child, arguing the state failed to prove the corpus delicti and that the evidence was unduly prejudicial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the corpus delicti rule does not apply to propensity evidence under § 18(c) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence's probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice.