 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hobbs v. Director of Revenue6/30/2003
he was convicted of a DWI in New Hampshire does not amount to a judicial admission because his later testimony clearly denied that it was a conviction. See id. Moreover, the Director did not argue at trial that there had been a judicial admission or otherwise object to the introduction of evidence on the issue of whether there was a conviction in New Hampshire, and, thus, the Director cannot raise the admission now. See id. at 375-76. Finally, the Director did not rely on the admission in Hobbs' s pleading that there was a conviction, but instead introduced the driving records to prove the convictions. Therefore, Hobbs is not bound by his pleading. See id. at 76; see also Jenni v. Gamel , 602 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980) (admission in pleading not binding on party when adversary introduces contrary evidence at trial).
The Director argues that, even without an admission by Hobbs, the evidence showed that Hobbs forfeited any bail or collateral he had posted to secure his appearance in court, which constitutes a conviction for purposes of denying a license in Missouri. Section 302.010(3). The record showing two " defaults" in New Hampshire, without more, is not enough evidence for the court to infer that there were two "convictions" in New Hampshire. It cannot reasonably be inferred from the face of the record that Hobbs was required to post bail or other collateral, much less that the default is a result of Hobbs's forfeiture of that bail or collateral. Nor does the fact that Hobbs never returned to New Hampshire to answer the DWI charge demonstrate that he posted bail or collateral or that the default evidences forfeiture thereof. The Director failed to produce evidence sufficient to show any convictions in New Hampshire. Thus, with proof of only one conviction, the trial court was correct to order the disqualification set aside.
Point I is denied.
B. Costs
In the second point, the Director argues that costs may not be recovered against the state in these proceedings. We agree. The court has no authority to tax costs against the state in drivers license proceedings. See sections 536.085(1) and 536.087.1 (authorizing costs against state in agency proceeding, but expressly excluding drivers license proceedings); Atkins v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 428, 428-29 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999); Reed v. Director of Revenue, 834 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).
Point II is granted.
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment assessing costs against the Director is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 2 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|