Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jatonya S. Clayborn-Muldrow 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
jatonya-s-claybornmuldrow
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jatonya S. Clayborn-Muldrow

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 22, 2022

State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Jatonya S. Clayborn-Muldrow, Respondent.

Respondent

The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's dismissal of a criminal information charging Jatonya S. Clayborn-Muldrow, a police officer, with attempted tampering with a victim. The trial court dismissed the charge, finding it was barred by the statute of limitations and factually insufficient. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the one-year statute of limitations had run because the alleged criminal conduct occurred on March 15, 2020, and the information was filed on March 16, 2021. The court also found the alleged conduct on March 16, 2020, did not constitute an overt act of attempted tampering and declined to consider the public officer exception due to briefing deficiencies.