State v. Mayfield, 22114

• Decision Date: 17 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. 22114,22114
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Kevin Wayne MAYFIELD, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 917

970 S.W.2d 917

STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Kevin Wayne MAYFIELD, Respondent.

No. 22114.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Southern District,

Division Two.

July 17, 1998.

H. Morley Swingle, Pros. Atty., Jackson, for Appellant.

Jeffrey P. Dix, Jackson, for Respondent.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

The State appeals from a judgment dismissing a felony complaint which alleged that Kevin Wayne Mayfield (Defendant) committed the class D felony of driving while intoxicated (DWI). ¹ We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

On November 13, 1994, Defendant allegedly drove a motor vehicle while intoxicated in Bollinger County, Missouri. After his arrest, Defendant allegedly refused to take a breathalyzer test. Subsequently, the Director of Revenue revoked his driving privileges as required by § 577.041.3. ² Pursuant to § 577.041.4, Defendant petitioned for a hearing regarding his license revocation in the Circuit Court of Bollinger County. His case was assigned No. CV194-119CC.

On January 25, 1995, in No. CV194-119CC, the prosecuting attorney and Defendant executed a document entitled "Confession of Judgment," which stipulated that the State "did not have probable cause ... to stop" Defendant and he "did not refuse to take a breathalyzer test." The parties concluded their stipulation by praying for entry of a judgment "finding that [Defendant] did not refuse to take a breathalyzer test." Based on this stipulation, the trial court "made a finding that [Defendant] did not refuse to take a breathalyzer test."

On September 11, 1997, a special prosecuting attorney for Bollinger County filed the instant felony DWI complaint founded upon Defendant's activity on November 13, 1994. Subsequently, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss presenting the defense of collateral estoppel. On January 21, 1998, the court entered the following judgment:

On this 21st day of January 1998, the Court takes up Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed on October 23, 1997, and finds that in Case Number CV494-119CC, [sic] the Bollinger County Prosecuting Attorney acting as counsel for the Director of Revenue, signed a Confession of Judgment confessing that the police officer making the stop in the case at hand did so without probable cause.

It is therefore ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted and Defendant discharged.

Here, the State contends the court erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that the State is collaterally estopped from prosecuting Defendant for DWI. The State alleges that a finding in "a civil breathalyzer refusal case" does not bar criminal prosecution for the same activity because, for collateral estoppel purposes, no relationship exists between a determination of fact in a refusal case and a determination of fact in a subsequent DWI prosecution. Numerous cases support the State's position.

This case and State v. Rotter, 958 S.W.2d 59 (Mo.App.1997), have strikingly similar facts. There, defendant claimed the evidence was insufficient to convict him of DWI. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his failure to take a breath test because the State had stipulated during his license revocation hearing that he had not refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Id. at 64.

In deciding against defendant's claim of error, the Western District of this Court said that "Missouri courts hold, for collateral estoppel purposes, that no relationship exists between a determination of fact in a criminal case and a determination of fact made in an administrative proceeding" for a license revocation because of refusal to submit to a breath test. Id. In support of this principle, the appellate court relied on State v. Warfield, 854 S.W.2d 9, 11-12 (Mo.App.1993) (holding administrative finding that defendant was not the driver of the car did not have collateral estoppel effect in criminal action); Humbert v. Benton, 811 S.W.2d 501, 502 (Mo.App.1991) (holding that finding in criminal action that [no] probable cause existed to arrest defendant...