State v. Pylypczuk

• Decision Date: 15 August 2017
• Docket Number: WD 79819.
• Citation: 527 S.W.3d 96
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary Lee PYLYPCZUK, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

527 S.W.3d 96

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Gary Lee PYLYPCZUK, Appellant.

WD 79819.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: August 15, 2017

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Richard A. Starnes and Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorneys General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Jeffrey S. Eastman, Gladstone, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Special Division: Zel M. Fischer, Special Judge, Presiding, and Karen King Mitchell and Cynthia L. Martin, Judges

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Following a jury trial, Gary Pylypczuk appeals his conviction of driving while intoxicated in violation of § 577.010.¹Pylypczuk argues that the circuit court improperly admitted evidence of his status as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender because the evidence was not properly authenticated.We agree.Accordingly, we reverse the sentence imposed by the court and remand for jury sentencing for the class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated.

Background

Pylypczuk was charged in the Circuit Court of Clay County, as a persistent offender, with driving while intoxicated in violation of § 577.010.A persistent offender is "a person who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of two or more intoxication-related offenses."§ 577.023.1(5)(a).Generally, driving while intoxicated is a class B misdemeanor, but if a defendant is found to be a persistent offender, the offense is enhanced to a class D felony.§§ 577.010.2,577.023.3.

At trial, the State intended to use two separate pieces of evidence, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, to show Pylypczuk's previous offenses.Each exhibit contained only one alleged prior intoxication-related offense.Therefore, the State could not prove Pylypczuk's persistent offender status unless the court admitted both exhibits.Exhibit 3 was admitted into evidence without objection.Pylypczuk objected, however, to Exhibit 2, which purported to be a record taken from the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System's Driving While Intoxicated Tracking System (DWITS).Exhibit 2 was neither certified nor accompanied by any kind of business record affidavit, and the State offered no witnesses to testify as to the exhibit's origin or authenticity.The only indication of the exhibit's origin was the prosecutor's representation to the court and web addresses on the face of the exhibit suggesting it was pulled by the prosecutor's office from a Department of Public Safety webpage.Pylypczuk argued that Exhibit 2 was inadmissible because it lacked authentication insofar as there was no witness testifying to its authenticity, it bore no signature or seal, and it did not appear to be either an original document or a copy of an original document.

In response to Pylypczuk's objection, the State claimed that § "577.023 allows [the DWITS record] to be admitted [without any foundation] to prove a prior conviction."Pylypczuk disagreed, arguing that, despite permitting the use of such documents, nothing in the statute eliminated the need for the document to be authenticated before it could be admitted.After considering the arguments, the circuit court allowed the exhibit into evidence and found "beyond a reasonable doubt that [Pylypczuk] has two prior convictions."Accordingly, Pylypczuk was no longer entitled to an advisory sentence from the jury.

At the close of trial, the jury found Pylypczuk guilty of driving while intoxicated.The court held a sentencing hearing on May 18, 2016, wherein Pylypczuk was sentenced under the class D felony range of punishment.Pylypczuk appeals.He does not challenge the jury's finding of guilt.Instead, he alleges only that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit 2, and therefore his offense was improperly classified as a class D felony.

Standard of Review

"The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence."State v. Mays , 501 S.W.3d 484, 488(Mo. App. W.D.2016)(citingState v. Joyner , 458 S.W.3d 875, 880(Mo. App. W.D.2015) )."We thus review the trial court's decisions regarding the admission of the evidence for an abuse of that discretion."Id.(citingJoyner , 458 S.W.3d at 880 )."The trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration."Joyner , 458 S.W.3d at 880."The ‘[lower]court's admission of evidence will be sustained as long as it is sustainable under any theory.’ "Mays , 501 S.W.3d at 489(quotingState v. Merrill , 990 S.W.2d 166, 170(Mo. App. W.D.1999) ).

Analysis

Pylypczuk argues that "the trial court erred in admitting into evidence [S]tate's [E]xhibit 2 and thereafter relying upon the same to enhance [Pylypczuk's] offender status because [S]tate's [E]xhibit 2 lacked authentication."We agree.

The State argues that § 577.023.16 eliminated the need for the State to authenticate the document prior to admission.This is an issue of statutory construction, "a question of law, not fact, and the lower court's ruling on a question of law is not a matter of judicial discretion."State v. Laplante , 148 S.W.3d 347, 348(Mo. App. S.D.2004).Therefore, we review this question de novo.

Generally, "[b]efore a document may be received in evidence, it must meet a number of foundational requirements including: relevancy, authentication, the best evidence rule, and hearsay."CACH, LLC v. Askew , 358 S.W.3d 58, 63(Mo. banc 2012)(quotingHadlock v. Dir. of Revenue , 860 S.W.2d 335, 337(Mo. banc 1993), superseded by statute as recognized inMills v. Dir. of Revenue , 964 S.W.2d 873, 875(Mo. App. E.D.1998) )."Documents may be authenticated in several ways."Rhonda Churchill Thomas, Documents as Evidence in Missouri , 38 Mo. L. Rev. 475, 476(1973).While the most common method is through "direct proof, either by the testimony of attesting witnesses or by proof that the signature on the document is in the handwriting of the purported author," another common method of authentication is "compliance with terms of an applicable statute."Id."Such statutes are desirable to eliminate the inconvenience and expense of live but generally uncontested foundation testimony."Hadlock , 860 S.W.2d at 337.

The legislature generally reflects its intent to omit certain evidence from basic foundational requirements with language such as "shall be admissible as evidence in all courts of this state."Hadlock , 860 S.W.2d at 337.

For example, [§] 490.220 [RSMo 1986 ] states that all records kept in any public office of the United States or a sister state "shall be evidence in this state" if attested by the keeper of the records and with the keeper's seal.So long as the requirements of the statute are met and the records are relevant, they are admissible.

Id.(quoting§ 490.220 RSMo 1986 ).

In contrast, § 577.023.16 states, in relevant part:

Evidence of a prior conviction ... shall include but not be limited to evidence received by a search of the records of the Missouri uniform law enforcement system, including criminal history records from the central repository or records from the driving while intoxicated tracking system (DWITS) maintained by the Missouri [S]tate [H]ighway [P]atrol, or the certified driving record maintained by the Missouri [D]epartment of [R]evenue [ (DOR) ].

Nothing in § 577.023.16 states that any of the records identified "shall be admissible."In fact, the statute fails to address admissibility in any way.Instead, the statute identifies specific evidence "sufficient to prove [the defendant's] prior convictions."State v. Thomas , 969 S.W.2d 354, 356(Mo. App. W.D.1998);see alsoState v. Miller , 153 S.W.3d 333, 338(Mo. App. S.D.2005)("In our view, [§] 577.023.14 [RSMo 2000 ] demonstrates clear legislative intent to establish the minimum evidentiary burden which must be met by the State in order to make a prima facie showing that a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense for purposes of enhanced punishment.");²State v. Graves , 358 S.W.3d 536, 541-42(Mo. App. S.D.2012)(identifying the types of evidence recognized in § 577.023.16 as "sources of evidence [that] contain sufficient indicia of reliability to establish the existence of prior convictions for driving while intoxicated."(quotingThomas , 969 S.W.2d at 356 )).

The State argues that, because the statute makes certain reports sufficient to prove prior convictions, we must assume that the legislature also intended to make those reports admissible without meeting general foundational requirements, given that the statute makes no mention of any authentication requirements.In so arguing, the State turns the law on its head.Rather than requiring that the statute eliminate one or more of the general foundational requirements for a particular document, the State argues that we must assume the foundational requirements are eliminated because the statute makes certain reports sufficient to prove prior convictions but does not mention foundational requirements.This is not the law.³The language of the statute suggests that the legislative intent behind § 577.023.16 was to clarify that compilations, such as DWITS records maintained by the Missouri State Highway Patrol and driving records maintained by the DOR, can be used as evidence of prior convictions thus eliminating the need for prosecutors to obtain a record of each individual conviction from various courts.Eliminating foundational requirements is not necessary to accomplish this purpose and thus should not be read into the statute absent language addressing admissibility.

Finally, the State argues that, because § 577.023.16 expressly mandates that DOR records be certified but contains no such requirement for Highway Patrol DWITS records, the legislature must have intended that no foundational requirements be imposed for the admission of DWITS records.Contrary to the State's claim, however, the inclusion of DOR records...