Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JASON MICHAEL HURST, Defendant-Apellant 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
jason-michael-hurst-defendantapellant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JASON MICHAEL HURST, Defendant-Apellant

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Aug 30, 2022

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JASON MICHAEL HURST, Defendant-Apellant

Appellant

Jason Michael Hurst appealed his convictions for first-degree tampering and resisting arrest, arguing the circuit court erred by refusing to give justification-by-necessity instructions to the jury. The appellate court agreed, finding that Hurst presented substantial evidence that, if believed, constituted justification for defending himself and his wife against abuse by sheriff's deputies. The court reversed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the refusal to give the requested instructions deprived Hurst of a defense he was entitled to present, and remanded the case for a new trial.