Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles E. GENTRY, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-10-24
Citations: 531 S.W.3d 107
Docket Number: No. ED 104785
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles E. GENTRY, Appellant.
Judges: Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 531
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles E. GENTRY, Appellant.
No. ED 104785
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: October 24, 2017
Nathan J. Aquino, P.O, Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.
Casey A.. Taylor, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg. 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant,-
Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Charles E. Gentry ("Defendant") appeals the judgment of the trial court convicting him of property damage in the first .degree in violation of § 569.100. Defendant argues five points on appeal. In Point I, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and in sentencing him for first-degree property damage because there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly damaged the victim's vehicle. In Point II, Defendant claims that 'the trial court plainly erred in refusing to define the term -"knowingly" when the jury requested a definition of that term during deliberation, and that the court's error resulted in manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. In Points III and IV, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State's objections to admission of excerpts from the National Auto Dealers Association Official Used Car Guide (the "NADA guide") and to the use of those excerpts when cross-examining the State's expert witness on the value of the victim's car. And in Point V, Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for the State's failure to disclose color photographs of the alleged property damage to the victim's vehicle.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have 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).