State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Puckett (moctapp, 2004-10-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Puckett
Mo. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
S.D.1997); State v. Zancauske, 804 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Eisenhouer (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. · 2001 · confidence medium
State v. Foster, 959 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Mo.App.1998); State v. Swope, 939 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Zancauske, 804 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rivers
Mo. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Section 547.200, RSMo Supp. 1999, permits the state an interlocutory appeal from any order “the substantive effect of which results in: ... [sjuppress-ing evidence.” Suppression of evidence, as used in § 547.200, is linked directly to § 542.296, RSMo 1994, which lists five bases for a motion to suppress. 1 State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Strizich (2×)
Mont. · 1997 · confidence medium
State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jenkins
Mo. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
From this premise, Defendant contends that ”[t]he State's failure to lay a proper foundation for the blood test results is not within the proper scope of a motion to suppress evidence and does not constitute 'suppressing evidence’ within the meaning of § 547.200.” See State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo. App. E.D.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Swope
Mo. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184,185 (Mo.App.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Dwyer
Mo. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Zancauske
Mo. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Section 547.200 permits the state to file an interlocutory appeal from “any order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in: (1) Quashing an arrest warrant; (2) Suppressing evidence; or (3) Suppressing a confession or admission.” The Eastern District of this court has held that the suppression of evidence referred to in § 547.200 “relates to those matters properly raised by motion as authorized in Section 542.296, RSMo.1978.” State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Vaughn
Mo. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
We are in doubt that the Department of Health’s failure to approve the test is a matter within the scope of a statutory motion to suppress evidence, State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 [2] (Mo.App.1984), but it is the defendant’s failure to raise the point he now asserts in his motion for new trial which precludes our review of his assignment of error.
cited Cited "see" State v. Beezley
Mo. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184 (Mo.App.1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Whitwell
Mo. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
As an in limine order, the trial court’s ruling had the substantive effect of excluding evidence, not suppressing evidence. 4 “Section 547.200.1 was not intended to allow the appeal of this order in limine.” Id. (emphasis added); see also State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984). *762 Outside of its jurisdictional statement, which noted it had the right to appeal “interlocutory orders on motions to suppress” pursuant to section 547.200.1(3), the State does not otherwise discuss its right to appeal the trial court’s Order in the present matter.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Medrano (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Shade, 110 Nev. 57 , 867 P.2d 393 (1994) (dismissing appeal on basis that Black’s Law Dictionary defines a motion to suppress as a motion to exclude evidence secured illegally, in violation of 4th, 5th or 6th amendments); State v. Strizich, 286 Mont. 1 , 952 P.2d 1365 (1997) (following Holzschuh); State v. Counts, 472 N.W.2d 756 (N.D.1991). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Joseph H. HOLZSCHUH, Appellant
48486.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
May 1, 1984.
670 S.W.2d 184
Theodore G. Pashos, Asst. Pros. Atty., Union, for appellant., David Hoven, Pacific, for respondent.
Reinhard, Crandall, Stephan.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
REINHARD, Judge.

The state has filed an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s ruling denying the admission of breathalyzer results into evidence. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. We find that defendant’s motion has merit and dismiss the appeal.

Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated. On March 7, 1984, the jury was impaneled and trial commenced. The state presented the testimony of a Pacific police officer and a Missouri State Highway patrolman, Corporal D.W. Storie. Storie testified he administered a breathalyzer test to the defendant. Thereafter, the court refused to allow Corporal Storie to testify as to the results of the breathalyzer test on the grounds that a proper foundation had not been laid. It is from this latter ruling that the state appeals.

[*185] The state may appeal in criminal cases only as provided in section 547.200. State v. Little River Drainage District, 490 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Mo.App.1973). Section 547.200 was repealed in 1983 and a new statute enacted effective September 28, 1983, which has broadened the scope of the state’s right to appeal. Laws, 1983, p. 931. It now provides inter alia that the state may file an interlocutory appeal from “any order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in ... [suppressing evidence or ... [suppressing a confession or admission.” The state argues that the trial court’s ruling in this case was an order that had the substantive effect of suppressing evidence.

This is a case of first impression in Missouri. We note this issue has been the source of much litigation in our sister state of Illinois. See People v. Phipps, 83 Ill.2d 87, 46 Ill.Dec. 164, 413 N.E.2d 1277 (1980); People v. McQueen, 115 Ill.App.3d 833, 71 Ill.Dec. 233, 450 N.E.2d 921 (1983); (what constitutes suppression of evidence); People v. Flatt, 82 Ill.2d 250, 45 Ill.Dec. 158, 412 N.E.2d 509 (1980); People v. Johnson, 113 Ill.App.3d 367, 69 Ill.Dec. 285, 447 N.E.2d 502 (1983).

We have concluded that § 547.200, RSMo.Supp.1983, was not meant to provide the state, the right to appeal a mid-trial evidentiary ruling. Subsection (5) of § 547.200 provides that the Supreme Court shall issue appropriate rules to facilitate the disposition of such appeals, “balancing the right of the state to review the correctness of pre-trial decisions of a trial court against the rights of the defendant to a speedy trial_” (emphasis added). This was not a pre-trial ruling. The Supreme Court has not yet promulgated rules implementing this section. Nonetheless, the statute manifests a legislative intent limiting the state’s right to appeal to pre-trial decisions, unlike the ruling in this case.

Moreover, we believe suppression of evidence referred to in the statute relates to those matters properly raised by motion as authorized in Section 542.296, RSMo. 1978. This statute provides for pre-trial motions to suppress unlawfully seized evidence upon specifically enumerated grounds. § 542.296.5 [1] The state’s failure to lay a proper foundation for breathalyzer results is not within the proper scope of a motion to suppress evidence, § 547.296.5, RSMo.1978, and does not constitute “suppressing evidence” within the meaning of § 547.200, RSMo.Supp.1983.

Appeal dismissed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and STEPHAN, J., concur.
1

. These grounds are: that the search and seizure were without warrant and without lawful authority; that the warrant was improper upon its face or was illegally issued; that the warrant was illegally executed; that the property seized was not described in the warrant; or that in any other manner the search and seizure violated the rights of movant under Mo. Const. Art. I, § 15 or the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.