Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JAMES DARRON BEERBOWER, JR., 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
james-darron-beerbower-jr-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JAMES DARRON BEERBOWER, JR., Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

James Darron Beerbower, Jr. was convicted of possessing hydrocodone pills. On appeal, Beerbower challenged the trial court's decision to grant a motion in limine, which excluded evidence of an eight-year-old prescription for a stronger dose of hydrocodone. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that Beerbower failed to make an offer of proof at trial and did not demonstrate that the excluded evidence would have helped his defense. The court also declined to review for plain error, finding no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.