Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nathaniel L. DIZER, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-01-10
Citations: 181 S.W.3d 609
Docket Number: No. ED 85581
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nathaniel L. DIZER, Appellant.
Judges: Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 181
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nathaniel L. DIZER, Appellant.
No. ED 85581.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Jan. 10, 2006.
Lisa M. Stroup, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Deborah Daniels, Richard Anthony Starnes, co-counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Nathaniel L. Dizer (Defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of unlawful use of a weapon and driving while revoked. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial and instead giving the jury the hammer instruction, MAI-CR3d 312.10. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the jury the hammer instruction. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).