Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

TODD JOHN MAYES 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
todd-john-mayes
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 TODD JOHN MAYES

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Dec 2, 2024

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. TODD JOHN MAYES, Appellant

Appellant

Todd John Mayes appealed his jury trial convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a detective to demonstrate how Mayes held the murder weapon. Mayes contended this testimony was cumulative and unfairly bolstered the State's case. The appellate court declined to review Mayes's claim for plain error, finding that the objection was not preserved at trial and the claimed error did not facially establish substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice had resulted. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.