Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CURTIS JEROME WEBB, JR. 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
curtis-jerome-webb-jr
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 CURTIS JEROME WEBB, JR.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jun 30, 2023

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. CURTIS JEROME WEBB, JR., Appellant

Appellant

Curtis Webb was found guilty of first-degree rape and first-degree statutory sodomy and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. On appeal, Webb raised an unpreserved claim of error, arguing that expert testimony regarding the victim's PTSD constituted improper vouching for her credibility and invaded the province of the jury. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, declined to review the claim for plain error, finding that the expert testimony, which stated opinions that the victim's PTSD resulted from sexual assault, did not rise to the level of improper vouching. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment.