Case ID: sw2d_815/html/0135-01.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, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Tamara ROBERTS, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. 58973.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Sept. 17, 1991.
    Loyce Hamilton, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.
    William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant, Tamara Roberts, of possession of cocaine, § 195.202 RSMo Cum Supp.1990. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years imprisonment. On appeal defendant’s sole point alleges the court erred in giving MAI-CR3d 302.04 because it unconstitutionally diminishes the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Both the Supreme Court of Missouri and this court have upheld the language in question. State v. Reese, 795 S.W.2d 69, 74-5 (Mo. banc 1990), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1025, 112 L.Ed.2d 1106 (1991); State v. Trust, 817 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App.1991). Defendant’s point is denied. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).