Wofford v. Director of Revenue, No. 63872
| Decision Date | 28 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 63872 |
| Citation | 868 S.W.2d 142 |
| Parties | Michael E. WOFFORD, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept. of Revenue, Jefferson City, for defendant/appellant.
Michael Foss Merritt, Wyne & Merritt, Creve Coeur, for plaintiff/respondent.
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals the trial court's reversal of her revocation of petitioner's driving privileges for refusing "to take a blood test." We affirm.
On December 21, 1992, petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated by Officer Christopher Meyer of the Creve Coeur Police Department. While at the Creve Coeur Police Station, petitioner fell and sustained a cut to his face. He was then transported to a hospital for treatment.
At the hospital, Officer Meyer read petitioner his Missouri Implied Consent rights and requested he submit to a blood test. Petitioner laid out his arm for the purpose of having a hospital lab technician draw his blood. At that point, a hospital security guard intervened, indicating petitioner would have to sign a hospital consent form prior to having blood drawn. Three times petitioner extended his arm to the lab technician, but each time he refused to sign the consent form.
Officer Meyer testified that the security guard informed him that the hospital required the consent form be signed before blood would be drawn. He further testified that he learned after he left the hospital that blood had subsequently been drawn from petitioner.
The Director subsequently revoked petitioner's driving privileges. Petitioner filed this petition for review in the circuit court. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that petitioner had not refused to submit to a blood test, but had only refused to sign a consent form. The court ordered his driving privileges reinstated.
The Director's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in setting aside petitioner's revocation because he failed to "do what was necessary for completion of the test." We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and must affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Oliver v. McNeill, 767 S.W.2d 568, 568-9 (Mo.App.1988). We defer to the trial court's resolution of credibility. Heigart v. Londell Manor, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 858, 863 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).
Our supreme court has defined a "refusal" as a volitional failure to do what is necessary in order that the chemical test can be performed. Spradling v. Deimeke, 528 S.W.2d 759, 766 (Mo.1975). Section 577.029, RSMo 1986, states that:
... a trained medical technician at the place of his employment, acting at the request and direction of [a]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spring
...467 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Ky.1971); Lynch v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 498 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Minn.Ct.App.1993); Wofford v. Director of Revenue, 868 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Mo.Ct.App.1993).4 Thus, we reject Spring's argument that the use of a consent form introduces a new and improper level of inquiry a......
-
Bedell v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., WD
...737, 739 (Mo.App.1995). The appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. Wofford v. Director of Revenue, 868 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Mo.App.1993). III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REINSTATING MR. BEDELL'S DRIVING PRIVILEGES We reverse on numerous grounds. First, pri......
-
Zimmerman v. Director of Revenue, SD24217
...the statute can be found to exist. See Sparling v. Director of Revenue, 52 S.W.3d 11, 13-14 (Mo.banc 2001); Wofford v. Director of Revenue, 868 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Mo.App. 1993). The statute does not require an individual to remove false teeth before submitting to a breath test. Therefore, Dri......
-
Zimmerman v. Director of Revenue
...the statute can be found to exist. See Sparling v. Director of Revenue, 52 S.W.3d 11, 13-14 (Mo.banc 2001); Wofford v. Director of Revenue, 868 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Mo.App. 1993). The statute does not require an individual to remove false teeth submitting to a breath test. Therefore, Driver's r......