Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ODOM, Defendant- 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
christopher-allen-odom-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ODOM, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Date unavailable

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ODOM, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Christopher Allen Odom was convicted of ten felony counts following a jury trial for a road rage incident. On appeal, Odom challenged the admission of certain evidence, but the appellate court declined to review these unpreserved claims for plain error. Odom also argued that the written judgment contained clerical errors regarding his sentences, which materially differed from the oral pronouncement. The court affirmed the judgment in part regarding the evidentiary claims and remanded the case with directions to correct the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentences.