Manzella v. Dir. of Revenue, ED 96152.
| Citation | 363 S.W.3d 393 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 96152.,ED 96152. |
| Parties | Joseph MANZELLA, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
363 S.W.3d 393
Joseph MANZELLA, Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.
No. ED 96152.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 28, 2012.Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
[363 S.W.3d 394]
Robert S. Adler St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Samuel E. Buffaloe, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, Presiding Judge.Joseph Manzella appeals from the circuit court's judgment sustaining an order of the Director of Revenue revoking Manzella's driving privileges. We affirm.
Manzella was arrested for driving while intoxicated after he failed field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a blood-alcohol test. The Director revoked Manzella's driver's license in accordance with section 577.041 RSMo. Manzella sought judicial review and, at trial, objected to the admissibility of an Alcohol Influence Report (AIR), accompanying police narrative report, and related records (collectively Exhibit A) on grounds of hearsay, best evidence, authenticity, lack of foundation
[363 S.W.3d 395]
as a business record under section 490.680. The circuit court ruled the exhibit admissible as Department of Revenue records under section 302.312 and ultimately sustained the Director's order of revocation. Manzella appeals.
Our review is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). We will affirm unless the trial court's judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. at 32. “A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Vernon v. Dir. of Revenue, 142 S.W.3d 905, 909 (Mo.App. S.D. banc 2004). “We will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances, is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice, and shows a lack of careful consideration.” Id.
Section 577.041 provides that evidence of a driver's refusal to submit to blood-alcohol tests is admissible in revocation proceedings. § 577.041.1. The statute requires the arresting officer to create and forward to the Department of Revenue a certified report containing certain details of the arrest. § 577.041.2. Upon receipt of that report, the Director “shall revoke the license of the person refusing to take the test for a period of one year.” § 577.041.3. A driver may then petition for review before a circuit court. § 577.041.4.
Section 302.312.1 provides for the admissibility of Revenue records. It states that copies of all documents and records filed with the Department of Revenue and copies of any records properly certified by the appropriate custodian shall be admissible as evidence in all courts of this state. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Life Evangelistic Ctr. v. City of St. Louis, ED 105737
...not included as part of New Life’s second point on appeal, and is therefore not preserved for our review. See Manzella v. Dir. of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 393, 395 (Mo. Ap. E.D. 2012) ("Issues that are raised only in the argument portion of the brief and are not contained in the point relied on ......
-
Keen v. Wolfe (In re Estate of Keen)
...we do not consider whether the challenged rulings were erroneous based upon the Will's no contest clause. See Manzella v. Dir. of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 393, 395 (Mo.App.E.D.2012) (“[t]his court reviews only those errors that are asserted in an appellant's point relied on”).15 Louie also faile......
-
Doughty v. Dir. of Revenue
...exception to evidentiary rules otherwise applicable to the contents of [Department of] Revenue records.” Manzella v. Director of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 393, 395 (Mo.App.2012). The legislature's intention was to eliminate the need for testimony to identify and authenticate the records and provi......
-
State v. Bartlik
...notify officials of crimes, thus promoting effective law enforcement. Id. at 415. “The privilege is designed for the protection of the [363 S.W.3d 393] public interest and not for the protection of the informant.” State v. McElroy, 894 S.W.2d 180, 186 (Mo.App. S.D.1995). Concepts of fundame......