¶1 ORDER
¶2 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.
¶3 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).