Collins v. Director of Revenue
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 566
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Deputy Lehman and Corporal Smith stopped Collins after a reported bar fight, noting odor of alcohol and Collins’s watery eyes.
- Collins admitted drinking three or four beers; he performed field sobriety tests with clues of intoxication and was arrested for DWI.
- At jail, Collins provided a breath sample; BAC was .120%.
- Director suspended Collins’s license for excessive BAC; at trial, Director sought to introduce Exhibit A (Alcohol Influence Report and breath test results).
- Collins objected vaguely to Exhibit A; the trial court did not immediately rule; the court later excluded BAC to the extent of regulatory noncompliance, but admitted Corporal Smith’s testimony.
- The trial court reinstated Collins’s license, finding the BAC results inadmissible for lack of proper foundation; Director appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collins preserved admissibility objections to BAC evidence | Collins's objection was vague but allowed the court to address foundation | Director contends lack of timely, specific objection bars BAC evidence | Objection preserved related to Exhibit A; trial court erred by excluding BAC evidence without proper credibility analysis |
| Does § 577.037.1 create a presumption of validity for BAC evidence in license actions | Section 577.037.1 provides a statutory presumption that aids Director | Section 577.037.1 creates no shifting presumption; White controls | No presumption shifts burden; presumption not applicable in license suspension proceedings |
| Effect of BAC evidence after admission when foundation is contested | BAC results could be considered, and credibility weighed by the court | Director must prove credibility of BAC results despite regulatory violations | Remand to allow trial court to assess credibility and weight of BAC evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Krieger v. Director of Revenue, 14 S.W.3d 697 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (timely, proper objection required to preserve foundation issues)
- Riley v. Dir. of Revenue, 378 S.W.3d 432 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (failure to object to BAC foundations does not render BAC toxicology toxic)
- Reinert v. Dir. of Revenue, 894 S.W.2d 162 (Mo.banc 1995) (foundational prerequisites waived when test result admitted without objection)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo.banc 2010) (presumption of director's evidence rejected; burden on director to prove case)
- Hilkemeyer v. Dir. of Revenue, 353 S.W.3d 62 (Mo.App. S.D.2011) (strict compliance with 15-minute observation required for admissibility)