 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
House v. Direct of Revenue8/19/1999
osition.
The trial court was entitled to believe House's testimony that Williams drove the pickup to the arrest site, as credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony was a matter for the trial court, which was free to believe none, part, or all of any witness's testimony. Herbert v. Harl, 757 S.W.2d 585, 587 (Mo. banc 1988).
The only finding the trial court made on Count I was that House "was arrested without probable cause." That finding is perplexing, as it could be understood to mean Ward (a) had no probable cause to believe House was driving the pickup, or (b) had no probable cause to believe House's blood alcohol concentration was .10 percent or more by weight. It is difficult for this court to comprehend how a fact-finder could reach either Conclusion on the evidence here. However, this court need not speculate about the logic that guided the trial court to its judgment.
In this Judge-tried case, all fact issues upon which no specific findings were made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached, Rule 73.01(a)(3), Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure (1998); Superior Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Snadon, 965 S.W.2d 421, 422 (Mo.App. S.D. 1998), and the judgment will be affirmed on any reasonable theory supported by the evidence. Weatherwax v. Redding, 953 S.W.2d 162, 167 (Mo.App. S.D. 1997); Nail Boutique, Inc. v. Church, 758 S.W.2d 206, 207-08 (Mo.App. S.D. 1988).
As explained earlier, Director was required to prove, inter alia, that House was driving the pickup when it arrived at the site where Ward ultimately arrested House. House's testimony that Williams was driving was sufficient to support a finding against Director on that issue. Consequently, this court, confining its review within the limitations by which it is bound, is compelled to affirm the trial court's nullification of Director's revocation of House's license.
The portion of the judgment adjudicating Count I of House's petition is affirmed.
Appeal 22699
House, the appellant in this appeal, prays that in the event this court reverses the judgment as to Count I, this court find he is entitled to hardship driving privileges.
Because this court has affirmed the judgment as to Count I, this court holds the trial court did not err in ruling that Count II of House's petition was moot.
The portion of the judgment pertaining to Count II is affirmed.
Separate Opinion:
None
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|