Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case-Law Topic

Evidence Missouri Cases

Browse Missouri appellate opinions tagged evidence. This topic page connects case-law research to related Ott Law Firm practice pages when the topic maps to practical legal help.

Topic Slug
evidence
Cases
1,337
Years
2018 - 2026

Related Legal Help

Practice pages related to evidence

This archive page is for research. These practice pages translate related issues into claims, evidence, deadlines, and next steps.

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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Recent Evidence Opinions

Showing up to 30 recent opinion records for this topic.

Browse all topic cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 12, 2026

PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants

Paul and Jacqueline Metzger obtained summary judgment for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway located between their home and their neighbors, Wayne and Kathy Morelock. The Morelocks appealed, challenging the summary judgment on two points: that the elements for a prescriptive easement were not met, and that the trial court erred in considering an affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the undisputed facts established the prescriptive easement and that the affidavit was properly considered.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 10, 2026

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.

Father appealed a circuit court judgment renewing a full order of protection against him for Mother, effective for his lifetime. Father contended the evidence was insufficient to justify renewal and that the judgment lacked sufficient findings for a lifetime order. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of stalking to warrant renewal and concluding that Father failed to preserve his claim regarding the sufficiency of findings for appellate review.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 10, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.

James McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault and property damage, raising two unpreserved claims of error concerning the admission of prior threats and the amount of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund (CVC) judgment. The appellate court declined plain error review for the evidence admissibility claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it granted plain error review for the CVC judgment, concluding the trial court erred by imposing a $46 judgment for a Class E felony, which was not authorized by the applicable statute at the time of the offense. The court modified the CVC judgment to $10 and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 3, 2026

Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust

Gregory Stiens, individually and as trustee, appealed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims, and against Stiens's counterclaims. Stiens challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the property description in the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on all points of error raised by Stiens regarding the trial proceedings and outcomes. However, the court remanded the case for the circuit court to amend the judgment to include proper legal descriptions of the disputed property awarded to the Rosenbohms.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 25, 2026

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant

Russell Kenneth Clancy appealed his conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted recklessly when he punched a law enforcement officer. The incident occurred during an altercation where Clancy, who was intoxicated, became belligerent and resisted arrest. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial testimony and body camera footage provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Clancy acted recklessly.

Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 24, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing the state failed to prove one of his prior offenses was an intoxication-related traffic offense (IRTO) for chronic offender enhancement. The circuit court had sentenced Peters as a chronic offender based on four prior IRTOs, including a 2002 municipal offense. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, holding that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2002 offense involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, as required by the current definition of "driving" for IRTOs.

Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 24, 2026

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.

Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging a forklift was defectively designed and caused his injuries. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding his testimony lacked reliable methodology, and subsequently granted summary judgment for Crown Equipment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert, and without that testimony, no genuine issue of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 17, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction after a bench trial for violating a full order of protection. He argued the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he had legal or actual notice of the order. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of Nytes's presence at the order of protection hearing and his prior guilty pleas for violating the same order were sufficient to establish actual notice.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 17, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.

Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to police. Walton contended his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to police deception about the true nature of the investigation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Walton's waiver was voluntary because he was informed of his rights, understood them, and continued speaking with detectives, consistent with prior case law.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 10, 2026

Derrie S. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Williams argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allow him to testify and for failing to investigate and call two witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that its findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous regarding both claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 10, 2026

Daniel T. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Daniel Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental state. Williams contended that such an investigation could have revealed mental health issues relevant to a diminished capacity defense. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Williams failed to demonstrate how additional information about his mental state would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.

Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 3, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Amanda Joy Rogers, Appellant.

Amanda Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court held that the state presented sufficient evidence of Rogers' knowing possession of the firearm, rejecting the requirement for 'additional incriminating evidence' in joint possession cases. It also found that law enforcement had probable cause for the vehicle search based on an informant's tip and other circumstances.

Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 3, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Keith Eggleston, Appellant.

James Eggleston appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly possessed methamphetamine found in a vehicle he was driving. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, clarifying that the plain language of the relevant statutes does not require "additional incriminating evidence" to establish possession in shared spaces, thereby rejecting prior case law. The Court found sufficient evidence that Eggleston was in actual possession of the methamphetamine and acted knowingly, supported by circumstantial evidence.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 3, 2026

CARL CAMERON FERGUSON, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Carl Cameron Ferguson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call a specific witness. The motion court denied relief, finding Ferguson's pro se motion facially deficient and, alternatively, that the decision not to call the witness was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, agreeing that the pro se motion was deficient and that the trial counsel's decision was a matter of reasonable trial strategy.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 13, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Lematty, Appellant.

Jeffrey Lematty appealed his convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree burglary, alleging instructional errors, improper admission and exclusion of evidence, and insufficient evidence for burglary. The appellate court reversed Lematty's second-degree burglary conviction, finding plain error in the verdict directing instruction that misstated the law by potentially excusing the State from proving the unlawful entry element. The court affirmed the first-degree rape conviction and all other challenged aspects of the trial court's judgment.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 13, 2026

Harry Little, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Harry Little appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and failing to argue a specific alternate perpetrator. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the alibi witness's testimony was not viable and that presenting a general alternate perpetrator theory was a reasonable strategic choice.

Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 13, 2026

In re: Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.

Attorney Mark W. Arensberg faced disciplinary proceedings for negligently drafting fraudulent loan documents for a client involved in a contentious divorce. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended a reprimand, but the Missouri Supreme Court conducted an independent de novo review. The Court found Arensberg acted knowingly, not negligently, in assisting his client to diminish the marital estate. Consequently, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension of Arensberg's law license, which was stayed pending the successful completion of a one-year probation period.

Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 13, 2026

Craig M. Wood, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Craig M. Wood appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief from his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the abduction and murder of Hailey Owens. Wood raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Wood failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or prejudice.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 30, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jayelyn Z. Rivers, Appellant.

Jayelyn Rivers appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting arrest, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the unlawful possession conviction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to infer Rivers had actual, knowing possession of the firearm. This evidence included the gun's location under his seat, his superior access, its visibility, and his flight from law enforcement.

Supreme Court of Missouri / Dec 29, 2025

State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Israel Barrera, Respondent.

Israel Barrera moved to suppress urine test results obtained via two warrants in a sexual molestation case. The circuit court sustained the motion, finding a lack of probable cause for Warrant 1 and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the affidavit for Warrant 1 provided a substantial basis for probable cause, particularly due to corroborative details of the victim's medical examination. The Court affirmed that Warrant 1 authorized both seizure and search, rendering Warrant 2 unnecessary, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 23, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Emonne W. Dillon, Appellant.

Emonne Dillon appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shooting that occurred during a brawl. Dillon argued the trial court erred by refusing his non-MAI instructions on imperfect self-defense, denying his motion to strike a juror for cause, and admitting hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions, juror selection, or the admission of the challenged statement.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 16, 2025

Cody Joseph Enderle, Guardian of the Person of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, an Incapacitated Person, and Conservator of the Estate of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, a Disabled Person vs.

Cody Enderle, as guardian and conservator for his father Charles Enderle, sued Richard Gercken and Gercken Kelsey L.L.C. to void a real estate transaction, alleging Charles lacked mental capacity, was unduly influenced, and the terms were unconscionable. The circuit court directed a verdict on the undue influence claim, a jury found Charles had contractual capacity, and the court ruled against unconscionability and granted Gercken's counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the directed verdict, jury instructions, or the court's rulings on unconscionability and evidence.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 16, 2025

In the Interest of: J.H., K.H., T.H., Juveniles; Juvenile Officer vs. J.M.S.

Mother J.M.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her three children, J.M.H., K.M.H., and T.M.H., by the Jackson County Circuit Court. The trial court based its decision on findings of abuse and neglect, and parental unfitness, concluding termination was in the children's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's determination that Mother committed severe and recurrent physical abuse, and that termination was in the children's best interest.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 16, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Shawn Ray Hollingshead, Appellant.

Shawn Ray Hollingshead appealed his jury convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an undisclosed rebuttal witness to counter his alibi defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hollingshead failed to provide proper notice of his intent to rely on an alibi defense, which relieved the State of its duty to disclose the rebuttal witness. Furthermore, the court found that his wife's testimony did not constitute a true alibi because it did not account for his whereabouts for the entire charging period.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 9, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Preston Gremminger, Appellant.

Preston Gremminger was convicted by a jury of two counts of statutory sodomy, one count of statutory rape, and two counts of incest, receiving a 128-year prison sentence. On appeal, Gremminger claimed the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of a victim's prior sexual abuse allegation, improperly admitting propensity evidence, and rejecting lesser-included offense instructions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on these issues.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 9, 2025

In the interest of: W.M.H.

W.M.H. appealed the juvenile court's judgment committing him to the Division of Youth Services after he was adjudicated delinquent for second-degree tampering and possession of a controlled substance. W.M.H. argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he purposely or knowingly rode unlawfully in another's automobile. The appellate court reversed the adjudication for second-degree tampering, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the requisite mental state, but affirmed the judgment otherwise.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 2, 2025

Randa M. Techtow vs. Jesse T. Techtow

Randa Techtow filed for dissolution of marriage, and a default judgment was entered against Jesse Techtow after he failed to respond. Jesse Techtow subsequently filed motions to set aside the default judgment, arguing good cause for his failure to respond and intrinsic fraud by Randa regarding marital property. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions or in excluding certain evidence.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 2, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric A. Pritchett, Appellant.

Eric A. Pritchett appealed his convictions for stealing and two counts of burglary, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, the admission of screenshots under the best evidence rule, and the enhancement of his sentence as a persistent offender. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence to prove the value of the stolen laptops exceeded $25,000, and determined the best evidence rule was not violated because witnesses testified only about admitted screenshots, not the original unavailable video. The court also declined plain error review for the sentence enhancement, noting Pritchett was on notice of the State's intent.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 25, 2025

Matthew J. Callow, Respondent, v. Danielle N. Callow, Appellant.

Danielle Callow (Mother) appealed the circuit court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Matthew Callow (Father). Mother challenged the denial of maintenance, the child support calculation, the division of marital property and uninsured medical bills, and the denial of her motion for newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding no abuse of discretion.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 25, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Oscar M. Ward III, Appellant.

Oscar Ward was convicted of kidnapping and domestic assault. On appeal, Ward argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting a computer-enhanced 911 call that was disclosed to the defense only one week before trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the late disclosure did not result in fundamental unfairness or prejudice to Ward, especially since he did not request a continuance and the evidence was cumulative of other testimony.