Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

ROBERT EDWARD SMITH, 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
robert-edward-smith-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 ROBERT EDWARD SMITH, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jun 28, 2019

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. ROBERT EDWARD SMITH, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Robert Edward Smith appealed his convictions for domestic assault, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to compel the victim's mental health records or conduct an in camera review. Smith contended these records were necessary to support his defense that the victim's injuries were self-inflicted. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Smith failed to make an adequate showing that the privileged records were material and favorable. However, the court remanded the case for the sole purpose of correcting a clerical error in the written judgment regarding the classification of one conviction.