 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Endsley v. Director of Revenue9/21/1999
a facie case, Anderson would have to offer proof that the machine had not been inspected within 35 days. Id. Thus, Anderson did not rebut the prima facie case of the director. Id. See also Bradford, 735 S.W.2d at 208 (recording the wrong date on the breathalyzer printout did not invalidate the test results.) Finally, in Hurley, the evidence showed that the records were incorrectly completed by the police officer in that the hour of the test was incorrect, and the lot number for the simulator solution was wrong. 982 S.W.2d at 696. The court held that evidence of inconsistencies did not rebut by a preponderance of the evidence that the machine malfunctioned. Id. at 697.
For these reasons, I would reverse the trial court's decision.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|