Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Teddy Charles Hammer 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
teddy-charles-hammer
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Teddy Charles Hammer

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Apr 30, 2019

State of Missouri vs. Teddy Charles Hammer

Respondent

Teddy Hammer was charged with sexual misconduct involving a child and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. This agreement included an admission of guilt and a waiver of certain defenses, such as mental disease or defect or diminished capacity, if he failed to comply with its terms. After the State refiled charges due to Hammer's non-compliance, a jury found him guilty. On appeal, Hammer contended the trial court erred by enforcing the agreement and precluding evidence of his diminished capacity. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the waiver in the deferred prosecution agreement was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.