Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tara L. LATHAM, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 368 S.W.3d 240
Docket Number: No. ED 96700
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tara L. LATHAM, Appellant.
Judges: Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., GLENN A. NORTON, J. and ROBERT M. CLAYTON, III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 368
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).