State v. Mignone
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1252
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On Aug. 26, 2011, trooper stopped Anthony Mignone, smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot eyes, and administered standardized field sobriety tests. Mignone was arrested at 3:06 a.m.
- Mignone consented to breath testing after being read the Implied Consent Advisory. First breath test at 4:38 a.m. = .075% BAC; second at 5:46 a.m. = .051% BAC.
- Mignone was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI); he moved to dismiss under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.037.5 (dismissal with prejudice if chemical analysis < .08% unless one of three exceptions applies).
- At the § 577.037.5 hearing the State presented the trooper’s testimony and breath test results; Mignone cross-examined but did not present independent evidence.
- Trial court found: chemical analysis < .08%; no evidence the test was unreliable due to lapse of time; no evidence of controlled-substance influence; and no substantial evidence of intoxication from observations or admissions — and dismissed with prejudice.
- State appealed; appellate court reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for clear error and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by finding no "substantial evidence" of intoxication from physical observations or admissions under § 577.037.5(3) | State: "Substantial evidence" is the usual sufficiency standard and the trooper’s testimony plus tests met that standard. | Mignone: Trial court may weigh credibility and reject State’s evidence; State bears burden to show dismissal is unwarranted. | Court: Affirmed — trial court properly weighed credibility; evidence (no erratic driving, largely passing SFST performance, no slurred speech) was not "substantial evidence." |
| Whether the State produced evidence that the breath analysis was unreliable due to lapse of time under § 577.037.5(1) | State: The statute requires only some evidence of unreliability; timing and declining BAC readings provide that evidence. | Mignone: Trial court may evaluate reliability and reject State’s attempt to infer higher earlier BAC absent expert/scientific foundation. | Court: Affirmed — State did not present evidence (e.g., expert testimony on alcohol metabolism or scientific meaning of the test timing) sufficient to establish unreliability due to lapse. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sparkling, 363 S.W.3d 46 (Mo. App. W.D.) (standard for reversing trial-court factual findings)
- State v. Abeln, 136 S.W.3d 803 (Mo. App. W.D.) (trial court may believe or disbelieve any testimony and weigh credibility)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc) (a party may contest evidence by cross-examination and argument without presenting contrary evidence)
- Hursh v. Dir. of Revenue, 272 S.W.3d 914 (Mo. App. W.D.) (trial court has wide discretion resolving evidentiary conflicts)
- Citizens for Rural Pres., Inc. v. Robinett, 648 S.W.2d 117 (Mo. App. W.D.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- State ex rel. Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Lee’s Summit, 957 S.W.2d 416 (Mo. App. W.D.) (competent evidence defined)
- State v. Gardner, 600 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. App. S.D.) (trial judge is judge of competency/reliability of evidence at preliminary proceedings)
- State v. Admire, 495 S.W.2d 132 (Mo. App.) (same principle)
- Henderson v. Fields, 68 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. App. W.D.) (expert testimony on alcohol metabolism often required to interpret timing and BAC changes)