Erskine v. Director of Revenue
428 S.W.3d 789
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Julia Erskine was administratively suspended by the Missouri Director of Revenue (DOR) after an April 14, 2012 arrest; she later filed for a trial de novo in circuit court to challenge the suspension.
- Erskine was convicted of DWI for the same April 14, 2012 incident before the de novo trial; DOR then issued a long-term license denial based on that conviction and two prior DWIs.
- At the de novo court trial, DOR offered a certified compilation of records as Exhibit A under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.312, which included the arresting officer’s alcohol influence report and other supporting documents.
- Erskine moved to strike Exhibit A, arguing due process and hearsay concerns because Officer Brian Moore (the arresting officer) was unavailable for cross-examination despite efforts to subpoena him.
- The trial court sustained Erskine’s motion, struck Exhibit A, and ordered reinstatement of Erskine’s license; the court relied on Doughty v. Director of Revenue in sustaining the motion.
- DOR appealed, arguing the trial court erred because properly certified DOR records are statutorily admissible under § 302.312 and cannot be excluded on hearsay grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified DOR records (Exhibit A) are admissible despite the unavailability of the arresting officer | Erskine: admitting Exhibit A without the officer violates due process and prevents cross-examination; hearsay should be excluded | DOR: § 302.312 makes properly certified DOR records admissible and removes hearsay/foundation objections | The court reversed: Exhibit A was admissible under § 302.312 and the trial court erred in excluding it |
| Whether striking Exhibit A required license reinstatement without further evidence | Erskine: exclusion left DOR with no evidence, so license must be reinstated | DOR: exclusion was improper; Exhibit A should have been admitted and considered | The court held the exclusion was erroneous and remanded for further proceedings with Exhibit A admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Director of Revenue, 387 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. banc 2013) (interpreting § 302.312 and discussing admissibility of DOR records)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (standards of review for court-tried driver’s license cases)
- Manzella v. Director of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 393 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (legislative purpose for § 302.312: eliminate need for testimony to authenticate DOR records)
- Krieg v. Director of Revenue, 39 S.W.3d 574 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (observing that properly certified DOR records are admissible)
- Hackmann v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 751 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (same)
- Mills v. Director of Revenue, 964 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (same)