State v. ThomasState v. Thomas
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Ulrich
Walter Thomas appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated,
FACTS
Officer Marcus Smith was working pursuant to a grant issued by the State of Missouri for the purpose of arresting drunk drivers on June 4,1995, at about 1:10 a.m. Officer Smith was driving eastbound on 9 ⅛ Street behind Walter Thomas’s car within Kansas City, Missouri. Officer Smith stopped Mr. Thomas, administered a field sobriety test and arrested Mr. Thomas for driving while intoxicated in violation of
Mr. Thomas was charged with driving while intoxicated,
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RECORDS REFLECTING MR. THOMAS’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED SATISFIED THE EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 577.023
As his sole point on appeal, Mr. Thomas argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence Department of Revenue records reflecting two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. Mr. Thomas argues that the records lacked foundation to establish the facts of his prior convictions because the records were competent only to certify proceedings of the administrative agency and were incompetent to prove the facts asserted by the documents in a judicial proceeding. The state argues that Mr. Thomas failed to preserve his challenge to the administrative records on these grounds, and thus, Mr. Thomas’s appeal must fail.
The state claims that Mr. Thomas failed to preserve the point. Whether Mr. Thomas preserved his claim for appeal is first determined. A party on appeal is held to the specific objections presented to the trial court. State ex rel. Selby v. Day,
Because an appellate court is not a forum in which new points will be considered, but is merely a court of review to determine whether the rulings of the trial court, as there presented, were correct, a party seeking the correction of error must stand or fall on the record made in the trial court, thus it follows that only those objections or grounds of objection which were urged in the trial court, without change and without addition, will be considered on appeal.
Id.
At trial, Mr. Thomas objected to the admission of the Department of Revenue records on numerous grounds including lack of
The certification only certified these are true and accurate records of the information they have at the Department of Revenue, it does not certify that the information contained with the records itself is actually truthful if [sic] itself. It certified they have a copy of this documentation at the State. There is no evidence here on the certification itself of the conviction for driving while intoxicated or the fact that the judge was a lawyer and, in fact, he was represented by counsel or waived his right to counsel. Second of all, there has been no proper foundation laid in regards to the documentation within that fact, the record here is a true and accurate record of the convictions themselves.
The thrust of Mr. Thomas’s objection before the trial court was that the Department of Revenue records lacked proper foundation to establish the fact of his prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. Mr. Thomas’s argument on appeal, that the records of the Department of Revenue are not competent to prove judicial proceedings, was, therefore, preserved by his objection at the trial court.
Whether the admission of the records of the Department of Revenue was sufficient to establish Mr. Thomas’s prior convictions for driving while intoxicated is next determined. Section 302.312 provides:
Copies of all papers, documents, and records lawfully deposited or filed in the offices of the department of revenue or the bureau of vital records of the department of health and copies of any records, properly certified by the appropriate custodian or the director, shall be admissible as evidence in all courts of this state and in all administrative proceedings.
Having determined that the Department of Revenue records were admissible as evidence in the state’s case against Mr. Thomas, whether the records were sufficient to prove Mr. Thomas’s prior convictions is determined.
The Department of Revenue records satisfied the evidentiary requirements of section 577.023.5(14). While the legislature specifically authorized records of the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System maintained by the Missouri state highway patrol, the legislature did not limit the evidence of prior convictions to the MULES system. As evinced by the statutory language “but not be limited to,” the legislature recognized that other sources of evidence would contain sufficient indicia of reliability to establish the existence of prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. Like the MULES system, the Department of Revenue records contain the requisite indicia of reliability to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
All concur.