Moore v. Lohman

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. Lohman

962 S.W.2d 917, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 1998 WL 67569

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

DocketNo. 21750

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 962 S.W.2d 917 (Moore v. Lohman) 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

Moore v. Lohman, 962 S.W.2d 917, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 1998 WL 67569 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

The trial court set aside Appellant’s decision to revoke Respondent’s driver’s license for one year for failure to take a breathalyzer test. Appellant presents one point, stating:

The trial court’s decision to set aside the revocation of Respondent’s driving privilege because the state failed to prove that the arresting officer issued a temporary [918]*918permit and notice form, Form 4323, to Respondent is error in that (A) Respondent was not prejudiced because Respondent did receive notice of the revocation and timely appealed, and (B) proof that the arresting officer issued Form 4323 to Respondent is not required to sustain a revocation for refusal to submit to the breathalyzer.

The point and Appellant’s brief ignore the finding of the trial court that the arresting officer also “failed to give Petitioner notice that his license would be immediately revoked upon his refusal” to take the breathalyzer test. Petitioner denied that he was so informed. The arresting officer, although apparently told to do so, did not appear in court. This finding alone justified the trial court’s action.

Section 577.041.1, RSMo 1994 (since amended, see RSMo Supp.1997), requires in part that the driver be informed “that his license shall be immediately revoked upon his refusal to take the test.” Failure to inform the driver of all the consequences of refusal to take a chemical test to measure blood-alcohol content prevents the Director of Revenue from revoking his driver’s license based upon the refusal. Cates v. Director of Revenue, 943 S.W.2d 281, 283 (Mo.App.1997); Kladky v. Director of Revenue, 940 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Mo.App.1997). There was a sufficient basis for the trial court’s ruling based upon the failure to properly notify Respondent of the consequence of the failure to take the test.

The judgment is affirmed.

GARRISON, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

The trial court set aside Appellant’s decision to revoke Respondent’s driver’s license for one year for failure to take a breathalyzer test. Appellant presents one point, stating:

The trial court’s decision to set aside the revocation of Respondent’s driving privilege because the state failed to prove that the arresting officer issued a temporary [918]*918permit and notice form, Form 4323, to Respondent is error in that (A) Respondent was not prejudiced because Respondent did receive notice of the revocation and timely appealed, and (B) proof that the arresting officer issued Form 4323 to Respondent is not required to sustain a revocation for refusal to submit to the breathalyzer.

The point and Appellant’s brief ignore the finding of the trial court that the arresting officer also “failed to give Petitioner notice that his license would be immediately revoked upon his refusal” to take the breathalyzer test. Petitioner denied that he was so informed. The arresting officer, although apparently told to do so, did not appear in court. This finding alone justified the trial court’s action.

Section 577.041.1, RSMo 1994 (since amended, see RSMo Supp.1997), requires in part that the driver be informed “that his license shall be immediately revoked upon his refusal to take the test.” Failure to inform the driver of all the consequences of refusal to take a chemical test to measure blood-alcohol content prevents the Director of Revenue from revoking his driver’s license based upon the refusal. Cates v. Director of Revenue, 943 S.W.2d 281, 283 (Mo.App.1997); Kladky v. Director of Revenue, 940 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Mo.App.1997). There was a sufficient basis for the trial court’s ruling based upon the failure to properly notify Respondent of the consequence of the failure to take the test.

The judgment is affirmed.

GARRISON, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

962 S.W.2d 917, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 1998 WL 67569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-lohman-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack