Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

WADE A. STUCKLEY 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
wade-a-stuckley
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 WADE A. STUCKLEY

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / May 13, 2019

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. WADE A. STUCKLEY, Appellant

Appellant

Wade Stuckley was convicted of statutory sodomy and child molestation involving his girlfriend's four-year-old child. On appeal, Stuckley sought plain-error review, arguing the trial court erred by giving jury instructions that violated the Celis-Garcia rule regarding multiple acts and that his convictions constituted double jeopardy. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no evident, obvious, and clear error, and no manifest injustice, particularly given Stuckley's defense strategy of admitting the acts but denying criminal intent. The court also found no double jeopardy as the convictions were based on separate acts.