Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

LUTHER JOHN CHRISTIANSON, JR., Defendant- 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
luther-john-christianson-jr-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LUTHER JOHN CHRISTIANSON, JR., Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Luther John Christianson, Jr. was convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault and felony child abuse/neglect following a bench trial. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting a 911 call recording, which he claimed contained inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding the recording admissible under the excited utterance exception and as a prior inconsistent statement, and that the Confrontation Clause was not violated. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to correct clerical errors in the judgment regarding the verdicts on other counts.