 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilcutt v. Director Of Revenue5/30/2000
here. See, e.g., Blechle v. Director of Revenue, 11 S.W.3d 655, 658 (Mo.App. E.D. November 23, 1999); Harper v. Director of Revenue, 14 S.W.3d 614, 617 (Mo.App. E.D. June 8, 1999); Selix v. Director of Revenue, 985 S.W.2d 380, 382 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999); Meurer v. Director of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999); and Vilcek v. Director of Revenue, 974 S.W.2d 602, 604-605 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). In these cases, we have held that the version of 19 CSR 25-30.051 in effect on the date of the trial de novo is applicable to the evidence introduced at that trial. Further, we have held that 19 CSR 25-30.051 is procedural and subject to retrospective application.
Based on these holdings, we find the trial court erroneously applied the version of 19 CSR 25-30.051 in effect on the date of the maintenance report and erroneously concluded that the certificate of analysis was defective and deficient. We find that the certificate of analysis introduced at the trial de novo complied with the requirements of the current version of 19 CSR 25-30.051 in effect on the date of the trial. The record on appeal sufficiently reveals that the solution supplier was RepCo Marketing, Inc., one of the approved suppliers mentioned in 19 CSR 25-30.051. Thus, Director sufficiently established a foundation for the admission of Driver's breathalyzer test results, and consequently that Driver's blood alcohol concentration was .10% or greater.
Having established a prima facie case for suspension of Driver's driver's license, the burden shifts to Driver to present evidence to rebut the prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. Driver did not present any evidence at trial and therefore did not meet his burden. Thus, the trial court's decision to reinstate Driver's driving privileges is against the weight of the evidence.
We hold the trial court erred in reinstating the driving privileges of Driver and setting aside Director's order suspending Driver's driver's license because Director complied with the methods of testing for blood alcohol concentration as required by the Department of Health under 19 CSR 25-30.051 in effect on the date of trial. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the suspension of Driver's driving privileges.
Separate Opinion:
None
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|