Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

STEVEN SAM VIGNOLO 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
steven-sam-vignolo
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 STEVEN SAM VIGNOLO

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. STEVEN SAM VIGNOLO, Appellant

Appellant

Steven Vignolo was convicted of first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Vignolo argued the trial court erred by excluding testimony from the victim's daughter and her therapist, which he claimed was necessary for his justification defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the testimony, finding no abuse of discretion as the testimony was not logically or legally relevant and the justification defense was unavailable. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc to correct a clerical error in the written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement.