State v. Pylypczuk
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 789
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Gary Pylypczuk was charged with DWI as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender, which elevates a class B misdemeanor to a class D felony if two prior intoxication-related convictions are proven.
- The State offered two exhibits (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3), each purporting to show one prior intoxication-related offense; both were needed to prove persistent-offender status.
- Exhibit 3 was admitted without objection and showed a 1998 DWI conviction. Exhibit 2 was a one-page printout allegedly from the Missouri DWITS system; the State offered no certification, business-record affidavit, or witness authentication for it.
- The trial court admitted Exhibit 2 over defendant’s authentication objection and found beyond a reasonable doubt that Pylypczuk had two prior convictions; the jury convicted on DWI and the court sentenced under the felony range.
- On appeal, Pylypczuk challenged only the admission/authentication of Exhibit 2; the court considers whether § 577.023.16 eliminated the usual foundational/authentication requirements for DWITS records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 577.023.16 removes the need to authenticate DWITS records before admission | §577.023.16 makes DWITS records sufficient to prove prior convictions; thus no separate authentication required | §577.023.16 does not speak to admissibility/authentication; foundational requirements still apply | Held: §577.023.16 addresses evidentiary sufficiency, not admissibility; it does not eliminate authentication requirements |
| Whether Exhibit 2 was sufficiently authenticated | n/a (State) — prosecutor offered only representation and web-address on face | Pylypczuk: no witness, no seal/signature, not an original or certified copy; counsel assertions insufficient | Held: Exhibit 2 lacked requisite authentication; admission was improper |
| Prejudice and effect on sentence classification | n/a (State) — admission supported persistent-offender finding | Pylypczuk: erroneous admission prejudiced him by elevating misdemeanor to felony | Held: Admission of Exhibit 2 was prejudicial; without it State could not prove persistent offender status |
| Remedy following erroneous admission | State argued it could rely on admitted Exhibit 3 or supplement record on remand | Pylypczuk: remand for sentencing as class B misdemeanor; no supplementation allowed because determination must have been made before jury submission | Held: Exhibit 3 did not qualify as a recent prior (occurrence was outside five-year window); state may not supplement record on remand; remanded for jury sentencing as a class B misdemeanor |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mays, 501 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. App. W.D.) (standard of review for admissibility rulings)
- Hadlock v. Director of Revenue, 860 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. banc) (statute may eliminate need for originals but does not necessarily remove other foundational requirements)
- State v. Thomas, 969 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. App. W.D.) (§577.023 enumerates evidence sufficient to prove prior convictions)
- State v. Laplante, 148 S.W.3d 347 (Mo. App. S.D.) (questions of statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- State v. Torello, 334 S.W.3d 903 (Mo. App. E.D.) (remand for jury sentencing when evidence insufficient to support enhanced offender status)