St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CHRISTOPHER W. SMITH 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-w-smith
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation

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.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving CHRISTOPHER W. SMITH

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Sep 20, 2024

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CHRISTOPHER W. SMITH, Appellant

Appellant

Christopher W. Smith was convicted of resisting arrest and unlawful use of a weapon after representing himself at trial. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding he knowingly and intelligently waived counsel. The appellate court agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial because Smith's written waiver of counsel failed to advise him of the maximum range of punishment as required by section 600.051, constituting plain error.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation