 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Weiser v. Director of Revenue3/9/1999
rphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The decision of the trial court will be upheld unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id.
Here, the trial court based its judgment on erroneous Conclusions of law. Thus, the court did not make any credibility determination, either expressed or implied, on the issue of probable cause that Driver was driving in violation of an alcohol related offense. Section 302.505.1, RSMo (1994). A determination of credibility is necessary, however, in view of Driver's testimony refuting the police officer's testimony regarding the field sobriety tests. The case, therefore, must be remanded to the trial court. See, e.g., Dugan v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 979 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998).
Finally, in response to Director's argument, we note the certificate of analysis and maintenance report were valid and admissible under recent decisions of this court. See Tate v. Director of Revenue, 982 S.W.2d 724, 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998): Trumble v. Director of Revenue, No. 73665, slip op. at 3 (Mo. App. E.D. Nov. 24, 1998). Director's point is granted.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Separate Opinion: None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
|