Dunker v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dunker v. Director of Revenue

938 S.W.2d 663, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 239

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

DocketNo. 70313

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 938 S.W.2d 663 (Dunker v. Director of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunker v. Director of Revenue, 938 S.W.2d 663, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kristine K. Dunker (“driver”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County sustaining the suspension of her driving privileges by respondent, the Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri (“Director”), for driving a motor vehicle while her blood alcohol content (“BAC”) was .10 percent or more. See RSMo § 302.505 (1994). We affirm.

Driver claims Director did not meet her burden of proof because she failed to prove driver’s blood was drawn in compliance with RSMo § 577.029 (1994), a requirement for the admission of blood test results. See State v. Hanners, 774 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Mo.App. E.D.1989). However, driver did not object when her BAC was admitted into evi[664]*664dence at trial. If evidence of a driver’s BAC is admitted without objection, the driver waives any objection to this evidence and it may be properly considered even if it would have been excluded upon a proper objection. Reinert v. Director of Revenue, 894 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo.banc 1996). “In absence of a specific objection, the State’s failure to prove compliance with even a foundational requirement does not destroy the sufficiency of its case.” Todd v. Lohman, 911 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (citing Reed v. Director of Revenue, 834 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App. E.D.1992)). As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kristine K. Dunker (“driver”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County sustaining the suspension of her driving privileges by respondent, the Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri (“Director”), for driving a motor vehicle while her blood alcohol content (“BAC”) was .10 percent or more. See RSMo § 302.505 (1994). We affirm.

Driver claims Director did not meet her burden of proof because she failed to prove driver’s blood was drawn in compliance with RSMo § 577.029 (1994), a requirement for the admission of blood test results. See State v. Hanners, 774 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Mo.App. E.D.1989). However, driver did not object when her BAC was admitted into evi[664]*664dence at trial. If evidence of a driver’s BAC is admitted without objection, the driver waives any objection to this evidence and it may be properly considered even if it would have been excluded upon a proper objection. Reinert v. Director of Revenue, 894 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo.banc 1996). “In absence of a specific objection, the State’s failure to prove compliance with even a foundational requirement does not destroy the sufficiency of its case.” Todd v. Lohman, 911 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (citing Reed v. Director of Revenue, 834 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App. E.D.1992)). As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

938 S.W.2d 663, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunker-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack