Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

PAVEL SAMSINAK 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
pavel-samsinak
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 PAVEL SAMSINAK

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Date unavailable

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. PAVEL SAMSINAK, Appellant

Appellant

Pavel Samsinak was convicted of second-degree murder, second-degree arson, armed criminal action, and felony tampering with physical evidence after bludgeoning Victim to death and setting her house on fire. On appeal, Samsinak challenged two evidentiary rulings, the refusal of a jury instruction, and the sufficiency of the evidence for his tampering conviction. The appellate court affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence for tampering, no error in refusing the sudden passion jury instruction, and no abuse of discretion in admitting a surveillance video or refusing the criminalist's report and testimony.