Manzella v. Director of Revenue
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 243
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Manzella appeals a circuit court judgment sustaining the Director of Revenue revocation of his driving privileges under section 577.041 after DWI arrest and refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test.
- The Director revoked based on a certified report; Exhibit A (AIR and police narrative records) were admitted at trial over hearsay/authenticity objections.
- The circuit court admitted Exhibit A under section 302.312, making it admissible as Revenue records; Manzella challenged foundation, authenticity, best evidence, and hearsay.
- Manzella argued cross-examination of officers who found probable cause was denied; he did not separately preserve this issue as a point relied on.
- The court applied Murphy v. Carron standards and affirmed the director’s revocation; it held Exhibit A properly admissible and rejected preservation concerns.
- Dissenting or alternative points referenced dismissal for confrontation-clause concerns were addressed as administrative proceedings, not criminal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Exhibit A under Revenue records | Manzella asserts lack of foundation, authenticity, and hearsay/best evidence concerns. | Director relies on section 302.312 allowing Revenue records as evidence with proper certification. | Exhibit A admissible under section 302.312 |
| Preservation and scope of cross-examination rights | Manzella was deprived of cross-examining officers. | Issue not preserved as a point relied on; even if preserved, no merit. | Not preserved; no reversal |
| Admissibility of refusal-to-test evidence under §577.041 | Evidence of refusal may be challenged on grounds of procedure and admissibility. | Statute requires admission of refusal report for license revocation. | Statutory admissibility upheld; revocation proper |
| Confrontation clause applicability to administrative revocation | Laboratory reports admitted via affidavit violate confrontation clause. | Revocation proceedings are administrative; Sixth Amendment not controlling. | Confrontation clause not applicable; statute controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for trial court judgments)
- Vernon v. Dir. of Revenue, 142 S.W.3d 905 (Mo.App. S.D. banc 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Connelly v. Dir. of Revenue, 291 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (Revenue records admissible under §302.312)
- Hackmann v. Dir. of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 751 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (admissibility of Revenue records under §302.312)
- Coleman v. Dir. of Revenue, 970 S.W.2d 394 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (admissibility of Revenue records; foundation principles)
- Garriott v. Dir. of Revenue, 130 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (confrontation clause considerations in revocation context)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (Sixth Amendment confrontation clause; lab reports via affidavit)