 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Soval v. Director of Revenue9/28/1999
s:
(4) Maintenance reports completed on or after March 26, 1996, and prior to the effective date of this rule shall be considered valid under this rule if a certificate of analysis was supplied with the simulator solution. Maintenance reports completed prior to March 26, 1996, shall be considered valid under this rule if done in compliance with the rules in effect at the time the maintenance report was conducted.
The maintenance report in this case was completed on August 1, 1995, well before March 26, 1996, after which the regulation requires a certificate of analysis for the simulator solution. The rules in effect at the time the maintenance report was conducted did not address simulator solutions. Therefore, the solution used in this case did not require a certificate of analysis. As such, we find that the maintenance report was done in compliance with the rules.
2. Printout of Test Result
Respondent argues that the only evidence the court had of Respondent's level of intoxication was the testimony of Officer Bauer, since the original printout was not presented at trial. Officer Bauer testified that the printout from the Data Master breath test was not attached to the Alcohol Influence Report. The failure to have such a printout at trial does not necessarily preclude testimony regarding the test results. Chevalier v. Dir. of Revenue, 928 S.W.2d 388, 395 (Mo. App. 1996). Admission of the printout is not necessary for the Director to satisfy its prima facie burden of proving the test results. Farin v. Dir. of Revenue, 1998 WL 808159 at 3.
C. Conclusion
The directed verdict entered in favor of Respondent at the close of the Director's case was in error. The judgment entering a directed verdict is reversed, and this matter is remanded for a new trial.
|