Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

TIMOTHY M. KLEESCHULTE 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
timothy-m-kleeschulte
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 TIMOTHY M. KLEESCHULTE

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 19, 2021

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. TIMOTHY M. KLEESCHULTE, Appellant

Appellant

Timothy M. Kleeschulte appealed his conviction for second-degree domestic assault, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence. He argued that the officer's testimony and a 911 recording contained inadmissible hearsay and violated his Confrontation Clause rights. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the challenged statements were admissible under the excited-utterance and prior inconsistent statement exceptions to hearsay, and that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because the declarants testified and were subject to cross-examination. The court also declined plain error review for an unpreserved Confrontation Clause claim.