Hardin v. Director of Revenue

991 S.W.2d 160, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 367, 1999 WL 152582
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 23, 1999
DocketNo. 22642
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 991 S.W.2d 160 (Hardin 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
Hardin v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 160, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 367, 1999 WL 152582 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue has appealed from a judgment entered by the circuit court of Howell County vacating a revocation of respondent’s operator’s license for a period of one year. The revocation was based on an alleged failure to submit to a chemical test for alcohol following an arrest on May 18, 1997. See § 577.041.3, RSMo Supp.1996. Upon review, the court found that respondent did not refuse to submit to the test.

The judgment recites that evidence was heard, but in response to Director’s request for a transcript, the circuit clerk verified that no record was made. Therefore, no transcript could be produced for purposes of the present appeal.1

Director has filed a motion with this court asking for a remand to the trial court so that respondent’s petition for review may be heard with an appropriate record preserved. Opportunity was afforded for respondent to make any desired response to the motion, but none was forthcoming.

The judgment refers generally to circumstances that occurred at the time of the arrest. It is therefore evident that any review of alleged error in the finding made by the trial court that there was no refusal to submit to a chemical test requires a record of the evidence heard. Under these circumstances, the correct procedure is to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. Keller v. Director of Revenue, 947 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). See also Henzlik v. Director of Revenue, 951 S.W.2d 760 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); Wolansky v. Director of Revenue, 936 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.App. S.D.1996).

Accordingly, the judgment in this case is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. A record of the proceedings shall be made for use in the event an aggrieved party then chooses to appeal.

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

Related

Salas-Cox v. Director of Revenue
189 S.W.3d 185 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)
Lillie v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI
139 S.W.3d 222 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2004)
Oyler v. Director of Revenue
10 S.W.3d 226 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
991 S.W.2d 160, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 367, 1999 WL 152582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardin-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1999.