Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Daniel Ray Robertson 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-ray-robertson
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Ray Robertson

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Apr 11, 2023

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Daniel Ray Robertson, Appellant.

Appellant

Daniel Ray Robertson appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary, arguing the trial court plainly erred by not intervening during the State's closing argument. Robertson contended the State presented a theory of accomplice liability not included in the jury instructions, thereby lowering the burden of proof. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no plain error because the State did not misstate the law, the jury was properly instructed on principal liability, and no manifest injustice resulted as the instructions favored the defendant.