State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Burks, 373 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 65 Admissibility of intoxication evidence and officer's opinion10 citing casesholding that a refusal to perform field *604 sobriety tests “was admissible as evidence of intoxication1 citing court put it this way
  • State v. Burks, 373 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).published
    See § 577.041.1 RSMo Cum.Supp. (2009); State v. Royal, 277 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Mo.App.2009); State v. Scholl, 114 S.W.3d 304 , 308 n. 2 (Mo.App.2003); State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.1997).
  • State v. Franks, 228 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).published
    See State v. Poole, 216 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Mo.App.2007); State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.1997).
  • State v. Poole, 216 S.W.3d 271 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).published
    Rose, 86 S.W.3d at 104 (admission of officer’s opinion regarding HGN test was harmless error where other evidence of defendant’s intoxication was overwhelming; including commission of traffic violation, odor of alcohol on breath, glassy ey…
  • State v. Adams, 163 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).published
    In State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.1997), this District found that the arresting officer’s testimony that, in his opinion, the defendant was intoxicated was sufficient evidence of intoxication to support the conviction for drivin…
  • Edmisten v. Dir. of Revenue, 92 S.W.3d 270 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).published
    State of Missouri v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.1997).
  • Calicotte v. Dir. of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).published
    Id. at 65 [2].
  • State v. Edwards, 280 S.W.3d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).published
    See State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.
  • State v. Hall, 201 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).published
    (holding that a refusal to perform field *604 sobriety tests “was admissible as evidence of intoxication)
  • State v. Hughes, 978 S.W.2d 24 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).published
    See State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.1997).
  • State v. Eppenauer, 957 S.W.2d 501 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).published
    See State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Litterell, 800 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1990).
At page 64 CROW, Presiding Judge. A jury found Appellant guilty of the class D felony of driving while intoxicated. §§ 577.010.1 and 577.023.3, RSMo 1994. The trial court…1 citing caseopening of page *64 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).published 2 cites
    See Hill, 865 S.W.2d at 704 ; State v. Link, 25 S.W.3d 136, 144-45 (Mo. banc 2000). [5] Subsequently, this court's Southern District adopted Hill in State v. Myers, 940 S.W.2d 64, 64-5 (Mo.App.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Anola F. MYERS, Appellant
21049.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Mar 17, 1997.
Published opinion
940 S.W.2d 64
1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 423
1997 WL 117513
Judith C. LaRose, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Theodore A Bruce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Crow, Parrish, Montgomery.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
CROW, Presiding Judge.

A jury found Appellant guilty of the class D felony of driving while intoxicated. §§ 577.010.1 and 577.023.3, RSMo 1994. The trial court imposed a prison sentence. This appeal followed.

Appellant’s sole point relied on maintains the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction in that the only evidence the State presented to prove intoxication was the arresting officer’s testimony that Appellant failed the “horizontal gaze nystagmus” (“HGN”) test. Citing State v. Wheeler, 764 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.App. W.D.1989), Appellant asserts: “Missouri does not recognize this test as a legitimate tool in determining intoxication.”

What Wheeler actually said was: “Missouri has yet to recognize the [HGN test] as a legitimate tool in determining intoxication.” Id. at 524. In Wheeler, the State offered no foundation evidence, scientific or medical, as to the acceptance of the HGN test in the scientific community. Id. Emphasizing the absence of such evidence, Wheeler held:

“The determination of whether this test is to be recognized and accepted in this-state must wait for another case, hopefully, a case in which both parties will fully develop the issues.”

Id. at 525.

Such a case came four years later: State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702 (Mo.App. W.D.1993). The evidence regarding scientific acceptance of the HGN test is set forth there, id. at 703-04, and need not be repeated here. Hill held:

[*65] “The State established that the HGN test has achieved general acceptance within the behavioral science community. We find that when properly administered by adequately trained personnel, the HGN test is admissible as evidence of intoxication.”

Id. at 704[2].

In the instant case the arresting officer had been trained in administering the HGN test. Appellant does not challenge the officer’s qualifications to conduct the test.

Furthermore, contrary to Appellant’s assignment of error, her failure of the HGN test was not the only evidence she was intoxicated. The arresting officer testified Appellant had bloodshot, watery eyes and a “moderate smell of alcohol coming from her breath.”

Additionally, the officer asked Appellant to perform other field sobriety tests and to submit to a breathalyzer test. Appellant refused. Her refusal was admissible as evidence of intoxication. State v. McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622, 623[7] (Mo.App. S.D.1994); see § 577.041.1, RSMo 1994.

Finally, the arresting officer testified that in his opinion Appellant was intoxicated. His opinion was sufficient evidence of intoxication to support the conviction. State v. Meanor, 863 S.W.2d 884, 887[3] (Mo. banc 1993). Judgment affirmed.

PARRISH, J., and MONTGOMERY, C.J., concur.