Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Dexter Wiggley 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
dexter-wiggley
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Dexter Wiggley

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jul 18, 2023

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dexter Wiggley, Appellant.

Appellant

Dexter Wiggley was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Wiggley argued the trial court erred by admitting a photograph with a police officer's handwritten notation, contending it was inadmissible hearsay. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the notation constituted Wiggley's adoptive admission and was therefore not hearsay. The court also declined to review his unpreserved claim of improper bolstering for plain error.