Amanda Harrell v. Director of Revenue
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 450
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- April 6, 2014: Trooper stops Amanda Harrell, arrests for DWI; Datamaster breath test at detention center showed BAC .122%.
- Director sought to uphold administrative revocation; Harrell demanded trial de novo in circuit court.
- Trial evidence: Datamaster maintenance report dated April 1, 2014; the wet-bath Simulator used to maintain the Datamaster had a NIST-traceable certification dated October 3, 2013; Simulator was returned to Jefferson City in August 2014 and thereafter a dry-gas simulator was used in the county.
- Attached Datamaster diagnostic printouts were largely illegible on the copies in the maintenance packet, though the maintenance report listed test results and bore the inspector’s signature.
- Trial court excluded the BAC result, finding insufficient foundation because (1) no evidence the Simulator was certified in 2014 as required by 19 CSR 25-30.051(4) and (2) maintenance printouts were illegible; it set aside the license revocation.
- Appeals court reversed and remanded: ordered trial court to admit the BAC evidence and then determine its reliability and whether the Director met the burden of persuasion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harrell) | Defendant's Argument (Director) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Director failed to lay foundational proof for BAC results because Simulator lacked 2014 NIST recertification | Foundation insufficient — regulation requires annual certification while simulator remained in service; missing 2014 certification renders BAC inadmissible | Only need to show machines complied with regulations at time of the BAC test (i.e., the Simulator was certified within one year prior to the April 1, 2014 maintenance) | Reversed: court held foundational requirements are satisfied by compliance at the time of the breath test; lack of later certification goes to weight/reliability, not admissibility |
| Whether illegible diagnostic printouts fatally undermined the maintenance report foundation | Illegible printouts prevent verification of diagnostic results; foundation lacking | Maintenance report itself (signed, lists test results within parameters) suffices; printouts not required to be legible for admissibility | Reversed: illegible printouts do not defeat foundation where report shows required checks, results, and signature; admissibility stands |
| Whether subsequent removal of Simulator from county service requires exclusion of BAC evidence | Subsequent removal/absence of later certification shows unreliability and mandates exclusion | Post-test maintenance or certification relates to reliability, not admissibility | Reversed: subsequent maintenance/certification affects weight, not submissibility; trial court must assess reliability on remand |
| Remedy after initial admission then post-trial exclusion by trial court | Trial court properly excluded after considering briefs and findings | Once admitted at trial, exclusion without reopening evidence is improper; appellate court should remand for reliability determination without new trial | Remanded: admit BAC evidence; trial court to make factual reliability/persuasion findings; no new trial or reopening required |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for court-tried civil appeals and burden of proof framework)
- Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338 (Mo. banc 1992) (maintenance checks within a period prior to test satisfy foundational requirement)
- Kern v. Director of Revenue, 936 S.W.2d 860 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (post-test maintenance bears on weight/reliability, not admissibility)
- Carter v. Director of Revenue, 454 S.W.3d 444 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (interpreting annual certification proof under 19 CSR 25-30.051(4))
- Sheridan v. Dir. of Revenue, 103 S.W.3d 878 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (maintenance report admissible without attached printouts where report is signed, lists checks, and contains results)
- Messner v. Dir. of Revenue, 469 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (once foundational compliance shown, admissibility is satisfied though reliability remains for factfinder)