346 S.W.3d 340
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Marston was charged with three City of Joplin ordinances: DUI of a controlled substance (Count I), driving the wrong direction on a one-way street (Count II), and possession of marijuana (Count III).
- Officer observed the defendant driving the wrong way on a one-way street and approached the vehicle after stopping her.
- Officer detected a strong smell of burnt marijuana and noted Defendant drank one beer.
- Field sobriety tests indicated intoxication, and a marijuana joint was found on the vehicle floorboard.
- Municipal court convicted Marston on Counts I–II; Count III was acquitted at trial de novo, and fines were imposed for Counts I and II.
- On appeal, the court reversed and remanded to enter a judgment of acquittal due to failure to prove the ordinances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the city proved the ordinances' contents | City contends ordinances were properly proven. | Ordinances were not introduced or certified as evidence. | Reversed for acquittal; insufficient proof of ordinances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Furne v. State, 642 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. banc. 1982) (proof of ordinance content required; double jeopardy then leads to acquittal)
- City of University City v. MAJ Inv. Corp., 884 S.W.2d 306 (Mo. App. 1994) (evidence rules for municipal ordinances; judicial notice limits)
- Mullen v. City of Kansas City, 690 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. App. 1985) (three methods to prove ordinances; certified copies or volume reference)
- City of Riverside v. Weddle, 544 S.W.2d 328 (Mo. App. 1976) (proof requirements for municipal ordinances)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1978) (double jeopardy considerations in reversing for acquittal)