JACOB DANIEL SIMON v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.
509 S.W.3d 135
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Aug. 1, 2015 Ranger Terry Shaw stopped Jacob Daniel Simon at Bennett Spring State Park for suspected DWI; Simon admitted drinking, performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and refused a portable breath test.
- At the jail Ranger Shaw read Simon the implied-consent warning from the alcohol influence report (AIR) form and Simon again refused to take a breathalyzer; Ranger Shaw issued a license-revocation notice for refusal.
- Simon petitioned for review; at a bench trial the trial court upheld the administrative revocation and found Simon had made a statutory refusal.
- Simon appealed, arguing his refusal was not statutorily valid because the AIR form had an unchecked box beside the statement that the test’s purpose is to determine blood alcohol content, so he was not informed of the purpose.
- Ranger Shaw testified he read the implied-consent language "word for word" and "every single thing on those pages," and the trial court credited that testimony.
- The appellate court reviewed under the bench-trial standard (deference to credibility findings) and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simon's refusal to submit to a breath test was a statutorily valid refusal because he was not informed of the test's purpose | Simon: The AIR form had an unchecked box next to the statement that the test determines blood alcohol content, so he lacked sufficient information and his refusal is invalid | Director/Ranger Shaw: Ranger Shaw read the implied-consent form in full, including the reasons and consequences, and the trial court could credit that testimony despite the unchecked box | Court affirmed: Crediting Ranger Shaw's testimony that he read the form, the record supported a finding that Simon was informed and thus his refusal was statutorily valid |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (bench-trial review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Mayfield v. Director of Revenue, 100 S.W.3d 847 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (revocation conditioned on statutorily sufficient request under implied consent)
- Sell v. Goldberg, 601 S.W.2d 665 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980) (no particular words required if statutory information is conveyed)
- Corum v. McNeill, 716 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (inference that officer conveyed required information may be drawn from explanation of test procedure)