Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

SHAWN C. HANNA 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
shawn-c-hanna
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 SHAWN C. HANNA

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jul 18, 2024

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. SHAWN C. HANNA, Appellant

Appellant

Shawn C. Hanna appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of his father, raising two points of error. First, he argued the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte striking a juror who expressed an inability to sit in judgment. Second, he claimed the court plainly erred by admitting evidence that he did not complete a handwriting exemplar, suggesting consciousness of guilt. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, declining plain error review for both points because neither facially established substantial grounds for believing a manifest injustice resulted.