Case ID: sw3d_368/html/0240-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tara L. LATHAM, Appellant.
    No. ED 96700.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    March 20, 2012.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 7, 2012.
    Application for Transfer Denied July 3, 2012.
    Daniel E. Hunt, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J. and ROBERT M. CLAYTON, III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tara L. Latham appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting her of stealing. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not sustaining Latham’s objection during voir dire and in denying Latham’s motion to disqualify the trial judge. We also find that the trial court did not err in submitting jury instruction number five and in denying Latham’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Finally, we find that the trial court did not plainly err in sustaining the State’s objection during Latham’s cross-examination of Tina Bridwell.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).