Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

HUNTER KELLEY, 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
hunter-kelley-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 HUNTER KELLEY, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Date unavailable

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. HUNTER KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Hunter Kelley appealed his convictions for child endangerment and child abuse, arguing that the State's expert physicians gave inadmissible hearsay testimony and violated his Confrontation Clause rights by relying on radiology reports from a non-testifying physician. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the expert testimony was not hearsay because experts may rely on evidence reasonably relied upon by others in their field, and the testifying experts presented their own conclusions. The court declined plain error review for Kelley's Confrontation Clause claims, finding he failed to establish manifest injustice.