State v. Clark

149 S.W.3d 916, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1849, 2004 WL 2791635

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Clark. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 800 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 7, 2004·No. No. WD 63701·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Clark appeals his conviction following jury trial for the class D felony of driving while intoxicated, section 577.010 RSMo 2000. He was sentenced as a prior offender to four years imprisonment. Mr. Clark contends that the trial court improperly allowed the testimony of the arresting officer’s use of the Horizontal Gaze Nys-tagmus (HGN) test because (1) the arresting officer was not qualified to administer the test, and (2) the arresting officer improperly performed the test.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Clark, 149 S.W.3d 916, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1849, 2004 WL 2791635 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

149 S.W.3d 916 (State v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.