¶1Defendant Robert E. Doepke was convicted by a Bollinger County jury of burglary and stealing and duly sentenced.
¶2We have read the transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the authorities cited.
¶3The evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts. Accomplices of defendant were witnesses for the state and their testimony clearly implicated the defendant in a drug theft from a Lutesville drug store.
¶4We have carefully reviewed defendant’s six points of alleged error and find no error of law.
¶5The circumstances of the alleged improper confrontation and identification of *951defendant after his arrest was first elicited by defendant on cross-examination. State v. Miller, 501 S.W.2d 547 (Mo.App.1973).
¶6Defendant was not entitled to reports of psychiatric examinations of his accomplices. U. S. v. Evans, 454 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1972).
¶7We find no abuse of discretion in denying defendant’s motion to quash the jury panel because the prosecuting attorney was known to nearly all panel members.
¶8We find no prejudice to defendant in the inability of the judge to locate a letter written to him by one of the accomplices. Defendant was aware of the contents of the letter and cross-examined the accomplice about its contents. State v. Green, 476 S.W.2d 567 (Mo.1972).
¶9The giving of MAI-CR 1.10, the “hammer” instruction, after the jury had been deliberating two hours and twenty minutes was discretionary with the trial court and we find no abuse of discretion. State v. Crawley, 478 S.W.2d 344 (Mo.1972).
¶10No objection was made to an accomplice’s testimony of his prior inconsistent statement at defendant’s “revocation hearing” and thus this point is not preserved for our review. State v. Simmons, 500 S.W.2d 325 (Mo.App.1973).
¶11A detailed opinion would have no prece-dential value.
¶12Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).
¶13All concur.