Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Deandre Wilkes 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
deandre-wilkes
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Deandre Wilkes

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 18, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre Wilkes, Appellant.

Appellant

Deandre Wilkes appealed his convictions for voluntary manslaughter and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged crimes and irrelevant victim character evidence, and by limiting his testimony about a prior encounter with the victim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial for a vague reference to prior bad acts, nor in admitting victim testimony where the defense opened the door. The court also found no plain error in limiting testimony about a prior encounter due to a lack of an offer of proof and facial irrelevance of the excluded details.