 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Framer v. Director of Revenue2/22/2000
A Fair Grove police patrolman arrested Willis Don Farmer for driving while intoxicated June 17, 1996. The patrolman took Farmer to jail and administered a "breath test" which produced a "reading" of ".186."
The Director of Revenue ("Director") thereafter suspended Farmer's privilege to drive a motor vehicle. Section 302.505. The suspension was sustained upon administrative review, section 302.530, whereupon Farmer filed a petition for trial de novo per section 302.535 in the Circuit Court of Greene County.
After hearing evidence, the trial court entered a two-sentence judgment stating:
"The Court finds State has failed in their burden of proof regarding maintenance of breath analyzer. Judgment for Petitioner."
Director appeals from that judgment. His sole claim of error is:
"The court below erred in setting aside the suspension of [Farmer's] driving privilege on the grounds that [Director] did not meet his burden of proof regarding maintenance of the breath analyzer because [Director] did not bear any such burden, in that [Farmer] did not make a proper and timely objection to the introduction of his test result."
Adjudication of the claim of error requires an account of certain events that occurred at trial.
At the outset, the trial court asked whether there were any "preliminary matters." This dialogue ensued:
"MR. CHENAULT : Well, Your Honor, we have agreed to stipulate to admission of the maintenance report in this matter, which has been labeled as Respondent's Exhibit B. MR. CHILDRESS : So stipulated, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Maintenance report is received."
Chenault then presented testimony from the patrolman. That testimony included an account of the circumstances surrounding Farmer's arrest and a description of Farmer's performance on some "field sobriety tests" administered by the patrolman.
Upon taking Farmer to jail, the patrolman administered the "breath test" referred to in the first paragraph of this opinion. Asked what instrument he used, the patrolman replied, "It was the Data Master."
The patrolman avowed he filled out a "checklist" and saw Farmer "blow into the machine." The patrolman's testimony continued:
"Q. Did [the Data Master] appear to function normally when he blew into it? A. Yes, it did. Q. Did it produce a reading after he blew into it? A. Yes. Q. And what was that reading? MR. CHILDRESS: Your Honor, I'm going to object as to lack of foundation for the admission of that. MR. CHENAULT: Well, Your Honor, we've already stipulated to the maintenance report coming in. He's testified he's had a Type III permit. He's identified the checklist. I would further ask . . . that you take judicial notice of the Code of State Regulations pertaining to the administration of a breath test . . . which, among other things, indicate that the Data Master is an approved instrument by the Department of Health; and also contains the operating procedures to be followed when giving the test on the Data Master. I believe that's the extent of the foundation I need to introduce. THE COURT: Well, what do you have to do, give the store--I don't--I'm not catching it, Childress; so, you're going to have to give the store away, I guess. MR. CHILDRESS: Your Honor, I'd just like to keep that objection running. THE COURT: Well, we will overrule the objection. The evidence will come in. BY MR. CHENAULT: Q. And what result did you get when you administered the test to Mr. Farmer? A. .186."
After Chenault finished presenting Director's evidence, Childress moved for a "directed verdict on the admission of the breath test." In sup
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|