State v. Ralls

• Decision Date: 04 October 1971
• Docket Number: No. 25423,25423
• Citation: 472 S.W.2d 642
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Royce Dale RALLS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 642

472 S.W.2d 642

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Royce Dale RALLS, Appellant.

No. 25423.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Oct. 4, 1971.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied

Nov. 5, 1971.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 13, 1971.

Robert G. Duncan, of Pierce, Duncan, Hill & Russell, Kansas City, for appellant.

Thomas O. Pickett, Pros. Atty., Grundy County, Trenton, for respondent.

HOWARD, Judge.

This case began in the magistrate court of Grundy County, Missouri. From a judgment of conviction appellant duly appealed to the circuit court which again found him guilty and fixed his punishment at a fine of $100.00 plus costs. He has duly appealed to this court.

In view of the issues raised, a very brief statement of the facts will suffice. It appears that on October 18, 1969, Robert Freeman, the city marshal of Laredo, Missouri, was called to the scene of a one-car automobile accident about one and a half miles south of that city. Upon arrival, he observed a 1962 Chevrolet automobile overturned in the ditch on the west side of the north and south road where it turned to the east. There were two people at the scene. He inquired who was driving the automobile and the defendant Ralls replied that he was. Upon inquiry, the defendant stated that he was not injured. The city marshal then contacted the highway patrol since the accident was outside of his city. The city marshal arrived at the scene about 8:25 P.M. and the highway patrol corporal arrived shortly after 8:30 P.M. Upon arrival, the corporal did not consult with the city marshal but immediately asked three general questions and received from the defendant Ralls the following answers as indicated:

Q. Who was operating the vehicle? A. I was.

Q. Are you hurt? A. No.

Q. What time did the accident happen? A. About 8:20 P.M. From their observations of the actions of the defendant, both the city marshal and the highway patrol corporal concluded that the defendant was intoxicated. He was taken to the county seat at Trenton and charged. Defendant disputes the nature of the charge initially lodged against him and that is the prime issue on this appeal.

The first point relied on by defendant in his brief reads as follows:

'The Circuit Court Erred in Allowing the State to File the Amended Information upon Which Appellant Was Tried and in Denying Appellant's Motion to Dismiss Said Amended Information for the Reason That the Amended Information Alleged a New and Different Offense Than That Alleged in the Information Filed in and upon Which Appellant Was Tried in the Magistrate Court.'

In support of this alleged error, defendant maintains that the traffic ticket issued by the highway patrol, which was adopted by the prosecuting attorney as the charge at the trial in the magistrate court, charged him only with driving on the wrong side of the road. On appeal from the magistrate court the trial is de novo in the circuit court and an amended information was filed in the circuit court which charged him with operation of 'a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition' in violation of Section 564.440, RSMo.1969, V.A.M.S. Defendant thus maintains that the charge for which he was tried in the circuit court was different from the charge for which he was tried in the magistrate court; that this violates Criminal Rule 24.02, V.A.M.R., which permits amendment of an information at any time prior to verdict or finding but which prohibits an amendment which results in a different charge or which amendment results in prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant. The same provisions as to amendment are found in Rule 37.19 applicable to traffic offenses. On the issue of this alleged difference between the charge on which he was tried in the magistrate court and that on which he was tried in the circuit court, defendant contends that the requirements, prescribed by such cases as State v. Thompson, Mo., 392 S.W.2d 617, and State v. Gladies, Mo., 456 S.W.2d 23, have been violated and that the court, therefore, erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the amended information in the circuit court.

We must thus determine the charge upon which defendant was tried in magistrate court. This charge was contained in a 'Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket' issued by the highway patrol and adopted as an information by the prosecuting attorney. This printed ticket as filled out charged that in Grundy County, Missouri, on October 18, 1969, at or near Highway V, at 8:25 P.M., Royce Dale Ralls did unlawfully operate a vehicle, described as a 1962 Chevrolet, bearing a state license of a given number for the year 1970. Thereafter, there is printed on the ticket the heading 'Six Principal Causes of Accidents.' None of the boxes provided for charging any of these six offenses is checked. Thereafter appears the printed words 'Describe Violation:' with two blank lines. On the first line is written 'D.W.I. 1st offense.' On the second blank line at the left is written 'B.A. .18' and after a long blank space, on the right end of that line, is written '105Q.'

Referring back to the 'Six Principal Causes of Accidents' as listed in the left-hand column of the ticket, there are three columns to the right containing places to check certain information descriptive of the details of the offense which is to be charged in the left-hand column. On the last line of this section of the ticket, there is space to check either the charge of 'Improper Passing' or 'Improper Lane Use.' Neither of these is checked so that neither of these is charged. However, in the column farthest to the right there appears a checkmark indicating 'Wrong Side of Pavement.' Below the description of the violation, the ticket contains three columns to be checked with other information concerning the alleged offense. This is described as 'Conditions Which Increased Seriousness Of The Violation:'. In the column farthest to the right, a checkmark has been placed to indicate 'Ran Off Road.' Thus, the specifics of the charge placed against defendant Ralls appear on the ticket as follows:

From this, defendant contends that the only charge placed against him by this ticket was driving on the wrong side of the road; that this is a distinctly different charge from driving while in an intoxicated condition which was the charge for which he was tried in the circuit court and that consequently the circuit court erred to his prejudice in permitting the amended information to be filed and that, therefore, the judgment of conviction should be reversed. We cannot agree with defendant's major premise that the traffic ticket charged the offense of driving on the wrong side of the road. It will be noted that the checkmark placed opposite 'Wrong Side of Pavement' is in a column designed for descriptive information elaborating upon a charge which is otherwise contained in the left-hand column of this ticket. If defendant had been charged with either 'Improper Passing' or 'Improper Lane Use', then some items to the right of such charge, and descriptive thereof, might be checked to indicate the...