Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

DERIK CLAYTON OSBORN, Defendant- 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
derik-clayton-osborn-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 DERIK CLAYTON OSBORN, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 7, 2023

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DERIK CLAYTON OSBORN, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Derik Clayton Osborn appealed his convictions for two counts of second-degree felony-murder and one count of second-degree domestic assault, which resulted from the death of his girlfriend and her unborn child. Osborn claimed the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements about his prior domestic abuse, violating his Confrontation Clause rights, and that there was insufficient evidence for the domestic assault charge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding any error in admitting the hearsay statements was harmless in a bench trial and that sufficient evidence supported the domestic assault conviction.