Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Scott Evan Weyant 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
scott-evan-weyant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Scott Evan Weyant

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 31, 2020

State of Missouri vs. Scott Evan Weyant

Respondent

Scott Weyant appealed his conviction for first-degree sodomy, arguing the trial court plainly erred by submitting a disjunctive jury instruction defining "deviate sexual intercourse." Weyant claimed the instruction, which allowed the jury to find the act was for either sexual gratification or terrorizing the victim, violated MAI-CR 420.12 and destroyed jury unanimity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that in a "single act" case with substantial evidence supporting both disjunctive purposes, such an instruction does not impact jury unanimity as long as the jury agrees on the ultimate issue of guilt.