State v. Burns, 339 S.W.3d 570

Burns crashed May 25, 2010 and received hospital treatment in St. Joseph, Missouri.
Burns was charged with careless driving, DWI under the influence of a drug, and failure to maintain financial responsibility.
The State sought to introduce Burns's medical records under a business records theory; Burns moved to suppress or in limine.
The trial court granted Burns's motion to suppress or in limine; the trial was continued for a writ of prohibition the State did not file.
The State appealed interlocutorily under section 547.200.1(3); the appellate court dismissed the appeal.
The court held the ruling was an in limine order, not a suppression of illegally obtained evidence, and thus not appealable under section 547.200.1(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether medical records are admissible under business records.	Burns (defendant) argues the in limine ruling precludes admission of records under evidentiary rules.	Burns argues no suppression under section 542.296 applies and the State cannot appeal an in limine ruling.	Appeal dismissed; ruling was in limine, not suppression.
Whether the State may pursue an interlocutory appeal under section 547.200.1(3).	Burns contends the statute applies only to suppression of illegally obtained evidence.	State contends it has right to appeal under section 547.200.1(3).	Interlocutory appeal dismissed; remedy via writ of prohibition remains available.

State v. Whitwell, 215 S.W.3d 760 (Mo.App. S.D. 2007) (suppression vs. evidentiary rule distinction; limine rulings are not appeals)
State v. Rivers, 26 S.W.3d 608 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) (suppression linked to section 542.296)
State v. Puckett, 146 S.W.3d 19 (Mo.App. E.D. 2004) (state's right to appeal is limited to illegally obtained evidence)
State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1992) (limine rulings are interlocutory and generally not appealable)
State v. Moad, 294 S.W.3d 83 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009) (remedial writ review for interlocutory orders)