Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

LARRY RAY JAMES, SR. 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
larry-ray-james-sr
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LARRY RAY JAMES, SR.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jul 16, 2020

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. LARRY RAY JAMES, SR., Appellant

Appellant

Larry James was found guilty of first-degree child molestation. On appeal, James argued the trial court erred by refusing to submit a limiting jury instruction regarding the victim's recorded forensic interview, contending that section 492.304, under which the interview was admitted, does not explicitly allow such evidence to be treated as substantive evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the plain language of section 492.304 does not limit the purpose for which admitted evidence can be used, and section 491.075 cannot be used to impose such limits.