Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Frank G. Hawkins 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
frank-g-hawkins
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Frank G. Hawkins

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Apr 14, 2020

State of Missouri vs. Frank G. Hawkins

Respondent

Frank G. Hawkins appealed his conviction for first-degree sodomy, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the child victim's out-of-court statements. Hawkins contended that the victim's non-verbal testimony did not satisfy statutory requirements and violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the conviction, holding that non-verbal responses constitute testimony under section 491.075 and that a reluctant witness is not unavailable. The court also found no Confrontation Clause violation because Hawkins had an opportunity for effective cross-examination.