Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

RONALL B. DONHAM, 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
ronall-b-donham-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 RONALL B. DONHAM, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 19, 2019

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. RONALL B. DONHAM, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Ronall B. Donham appealed his conviction for receiving stolen property, arguing the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his prior convictions for receiving stolen property and tampering with a vehicle. Donham contended this evidence was offered solely to prove his propensity to commit the crime. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the prior convictions were admissible under section 570.080.2 to prove the knowledge or belief element of the offense, and the jury was given a limiting instruction.