 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wampler v. Director of Revenue8/29/2000
the driver was represented by an attorney or waived the right, and the judge was an attorney. The court concluded that the statute did not require such proof. Eaton, 929 S.W.2d at 284. We view the Lane holding to be broader. To the extent Lane finds that records filed by the Director are sufficient to carry the day although the records are never introduced into evidence, we disagree with and decline to follow it.
In our case, the Director relies on section 302.312(1) RSMo Cum. Supp. 1997, which provides that Department of Revenue records, when properly certified, "shall be admissible as evidence in all courts of this state and in all administrative proceedings." However, just because a document or record is "admissible" does not mean it is automatically admitted into evidence merely because it has been filed in a case or attached to a pleading. The Director is required, as are proponents in other civil cases, to put into evidence that which he desires to have considered by the fact finder. The judge should not be required to leaf through a file to determine what should be used as evidence.
Merely filing a document "does not put it before the court as evidence." Hopkins v. Hopkins, 664 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Mo.App. E.D. 1984). For example, "the filing of a statement of income and expenses does not put it before the court as evidence." Halupa v. Halupa, 943 S.W.2d 272, 277 (Mo.App. E.D. 1997).
The trial judge was correct. The Director presented no evidence and declined the court's invitation to request a continuance. As the judge stated, the attorney for the Director was called into court "at the last minute with no ammunition, maybe no gun even." Regardless, the Director fired no shots. Point II is denied.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|