Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Elizabeth Suttles 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
elizabeth-suttles
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Elizabeth Suttles

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 28, 2019

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Elizabeth Suttles, Appellant.

Appellant

Elizabeth Suttles appealed her convictions for furnishing pornographic materials to a minor and first-degree statutory sodomy. She challenged the trial court's admission of expert testimony from two witnesses regarding delayed disclosures of sexual abuse by child victims, arguing it was unreliable and invaded the jury's province. Suttles also contended the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's hallucinations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the expert testimony admissible as generalized, relevant, and reliable, and the hallucination evidence properly excluded as cumulative and unfairly prejudicial.