State v. Hamm

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hamm

271 S.W.3d 60, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1533, 2008 WL 5447461

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 18, 2008·No. ED 89299·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Samuel Hamm, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 80.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Samuel Hamm, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 80.25(b).

State v. Hamm, 271 S.W.3d 60, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1533, 2008 WL 5447461 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

271 S.W.3d 60 (State v. Hamm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related