Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Mark Randal Pullum 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
mark-randal-pullum
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Mark Randal Pullum

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

State of Missouri vs. Mark Randal Pullum

Respondent

Mark Randal Pullum was convicted of first-degree assault and first-degree burglary after a jury trial, stemming from an incident where he punched his neighbor D.K. after D.K. allegedly pointed a gun at him. On appeal, Pullum argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense for the burglary charge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Pullum could not establish he had no duty to retreat from D.K.'s home, a necessary element for a self-defense instruction in this context.