Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

LORENZO DARNELL ROY 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
lorenzo-darnell-roy
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LORENZO DARNELL ROY

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jan 27, 2020

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. LORENZO DARNELL ROY, Appellant

Appellant

Lorenzo Darnell Roy appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and armed criminal action following a jury trial. Roy raised seven points on appeal, challenging evidentiary rulings related to the Confrontation Clause, ultimate issue testimony, police deception, and investigation thoroughness, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence and juror disqualification. The appellate court found no merit in any of Roy's points, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.