Hackmann v. Director of Revenue, 74358
| Decision Date | 18 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 74358,74358 |
| Citation | 991 S.W.2d 751 |
| Parties | Ronald D. HACKMANN, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
David J. Sokolowski, Florissant, for respondent.
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County reinstating the driving privileges of Ronald D. Hackmann (driver) following a bench trial on driver's petition filed pursuant to section 302.535 RSMo 1994 (all further references shall be to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise noted) for de novo review of an administrative suspension of his license by the Department of Revenue.
On appeal, the Director contends that the trial court erred in (1) excluding the certificate of analysis for the simulator solution and the results of the breathalyzer test because they were properly certified as business records; and (2) reinstating driver's driving privileges because the trial court's decision was against the weight of the evidence. We reverse and remand.
We review the trial court's judgment pursuant to Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976), in that we must affirm if it has substantial evidentiary support, it is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law.
The record, viewed in a light most favorable to the judgment, reveals that driver was arrested for driving while intoxicated on September 17, 1997. A blood alcohol test was administered which revealed that his blood alcohol content (BAC) was .185 percent. As a result of driver's arrest, the Director suspended his driving privileges pursuant to section 302.505. Driver requested an administrative hearing as permitted by section 302.530, at which the Director's suspension was upheld. Driver then filed his petition for trial de novo.
At trial, the Director offered the testimony of the arresting officer and submitted the following four exhibits: (A) the checklist from the alcohol influence report; (B) the printout of the results of the breathalyzer test; (C) the maintenance records for the breathalyzer; and (D) a file kept by the Department of Revenue containing records related to driver's arrest on September 17, 1997, including the checklist and printout, the maintenance records for the breathalyzer, and the certificate of analysis for the simulator solution.
When the Director offered Exhibit C, driver objected to it on multiple grounds, stating that the maintenance report contained double hearsay in that the certificate of analysis was prepared by RepCo and was not a valid business record of the Missouri Highway Patrol. Driver also argued that the certificate of analysis contained no date; therefore, he contended, it could not be determined if it was prepared at or near the time of the event, as required by section 490.680. Driver maintained that, without the certificate of analysis, the Director had failed to lay a foundation for admission of the test results because she failed to show compliance with Department of Health regulations.
The trial court excluded the certificate of analysis contained in Exhibit C, finding that, without a date, the certificate failed to comply with section 490.680. The trial court then concluded that, without the certificate of analysis, the maintenance report was incomplete; thus, it also excluded the results of the breathalyzer test contained in Exhibits A and B. When the Director offered Exhibit D, the records of the Department of Revenue, she argued that they were admissible pursuant to section 302.312. Nevertheless, the trial court excluded the certificate of analysis and the results of the breathalyzer test contained in those records, citing the same reasoning used to justify their exclusion from Exhibit C. After excluding this evidence, the trial court ruled that the Director had failed to establish her burden of showing that driver had a BAC of .10 percent or more and ordered driver's driving privileges reinstated.
In her first point on appeal, the Director argues that the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartholomew v. Dir. of Revenue, ED 101750
...adopted in March 1996. The breathalyzers in those cases were tested on December 27, 1995 and on July 13, 1995 respectively. Salamone, 991 S.W.2d at 751 ; Hunt, 10 S.W.3d at 150. The trial courts reinstated the driving privileges in both cases. Salamone, 991 S.W.2d at 750 ; Hunt, 10 S.W.3d a......
-
Stellwagon v. Director of Revenue
...light most favorable to the judgment." Knipp v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo.App. 1998); see Hackmann v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Mo.App. 1999). "The trial court's judgment is to be affirmed if it is correct under any reasonable theory supported by the evide......
-
Francis v. Director of Revenue
...of Chapters 302, 303 and/or 577 RSMo." Therefore, Exhibit A was properly certified and admissible. Hackmann v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 751, 753 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). As part of a certified business record of the Missouri Department of Revenue, properly submitted pursuant to §§ 490.692......
-
Riggin v. Dir. of Revenue
...Review of the trial court's judgment is pursuant to Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). See Hackmann v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Mo.App. 1999). We must affirm the trial court's judgment if it has substantial evidentiary support, it is not against the weight......