Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Daniel R. Overstreet 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
daniel-r-overstreet
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Daniel R. Overstreet

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Apr 29, 2025

State of Missouri vs. Daniel R. Overstreet

Respondent

Daniel Overstreet appealed his convictions for multiple counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and attempted sodomy, arguing the circuit court plainly erred by giving shortened reminder recess instructions to the jury on three occasions. He claimed this error violated his rights to due process and a fair and impartial jury. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Overstreet failed to demonstrate manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice because his claim of prejudice was speculative and the jury had received the full instruction multiple times.