Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Juan Madrigal, Jr. 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
juan-madrigal-jr
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Juan Madrigal, Jr.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Sep 20, 2022

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Juan Madrigal, Jr., Appellant.

Appellant

Juan Madrigal, Jr. appealed his jury convictions for first-degree domestic assault, second-degree domestic assault, and attempted victim tampering. He challenged the sufficiency of evidence for serious physical injury, an alleged instructional error regarding the definition of serious physical injury, and the admission of two pieces of prior bad act evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of serious physical injury, no instructional error as the definition was provided in a separate instruction, and no abuse of discretion in admitting the prior bad act evidence.