Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Charles E. GRAY, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-01-14
Citations: 99 S.W.3d 14
Docket Number: No. ED 80248
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Charles E. GRAY, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 99
Pages: 14–15

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Charles E. GRAY, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 80248.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 14, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 20, 2003.
Gwenda R. Robinson, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Charnette D. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Charles E. Gray, appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree murder in violation of Section 565.021, RSMo 2000; armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 2000; and first-degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000. He contends the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the admitted evidence was not so prejudicial that it deprived Defendant of a fair trial. State v. Shaw, 14 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).