Thurman v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
| Decision Date | 16 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53164,53164 |
| Parties | David THURMAN, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Cynthia Beth Green, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
Laurence F. Alter, St. Louis, for respondent.
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals the judgment of the trial court reinstating David Thurman's (Driver's) driving privileges after they had been suspended pursuant to § 302.505, RSMo 1986. The trial court did not issue findings of fact and did not give the basis of its decision. We reverse and remand.
After his driving privileges were revoked, Driver requested and was granted a trial de novo. At that trial the only witness was the arresting officer. The officer testified he observed a vehicle weaving on the road and pulled it over. As he approached the vehicle Driver got out and staggered towards the officer. The officer noticed Driver's eyes were bloodshot and watery, his pupils were dilated, his speech was slurred and he seemed a little confused. The officer then administered several field sobriety tests. Driver was unable to successfully complete his alphabet, count backwards from 100 to 78, walk heel to toe, find his nose with either hand, or walk a straight line. The officer arrested Driver and administered a breath analysis test which indicated Driver's blood alcohol to be .133 percent by weight. The officer also testified at the trial de novo that he held a Type III permit to operate the breath analysis machine, that he was the primary operator of that machine, and that he had last calibrated it about three weeks before Driver was arrested. Admitted into evidence at the trial de novo were the officer's public safety certificate, his Type III permit, the checklist used in administering Driver's breath test, the chromatogram from Driver's breath test indicating .133 percent blood alcohol by weight, and a certified copy of the ordinance under which Driver was arrested. After hearing this testimony the trial court, without making any findings, sustained Driver's petition and reinstated his driving privileges.
The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. In determining if there is substantial evidence, we defer to the ability of the trial court to ascertain the facts and judge witness credibility. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. And, where there are no findings of fact we assume the trial court's judgment was based on proper grounds. See Cissell v. Director of Revenue, 737 S.W.2d 522, 523 (Mo.App.1987). Under the above standard we reverse and remand because, if believed, the evidence does not support the judgment.
At the trial de novo the Director bears the burden of proving there was probable cause to make the arrest and that Driver had a blood alcohol content of .13 percent or more. Stewart v. Director of Revenue, 702 S.W.2d 472, 475 (Mo. banc 1986). The trial court did not state the reason for its action, thus we will address both issues.
Probable cause to make an arrest for driving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Endsley v. Director of Revenue
...that the temperature was not checked. It cannot be inferred, however, that the machine malfunctioned. See Thurman v. Director of Revenue, 745 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Mo. App. 1988)(ruling that the fact that the breathalyzer had not been calibrated for three weeks before the driver's arrest did not......
-
Simmons v. Director of Revenue
...475, 477[9] (Mo.App. E.D. 1997); Diehl v. Director of Revenue, 836 S.W.2d 94, 95-96 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992); Thurman v. Director of Revenue, 745 S.W.2d 260, 261-62 (Mo.App. E.D. 1988). As this court comprehends the transcript, Simmons's lawyer tacitly conceded in the trial court that Matthews h......
-
Rain v. Director of Revenue
...of probable cause. Sufficient other indicia of intoxication can support a finding of probable cause. See Thurman v. Director of Revenue, 745 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Mo. App. 1988). The totality of the arresting officer's observations, information, and experience and the reasonable inferences drawn......
-
James v. Director of Revenue
...simply denied his petition if the evidence supported a verdict for the Director."14 The instant case is unlike Thurman v. Director of Revenue, 745 S.W.2d 260 (Mo.App.1988), where the Eastern District of this Court found it necessary to remand the case to the circuit court for findings of fa......