Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070 (2026)

Evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  536.070.  Evidence — witnesses — objections — judicial notice — affidavits as evidence — transcript. — In any contested case:

  (1)  Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or affirmation;

  (2)  Each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not the subject of the direct examination, to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called him or her to testify, and to rebut the evidence against him or her;

  (3)  A party who does not testify in his or her own behalf may be called and examined as if under cross-examination;

  (4)  Each agency shall cause all proceedings in hearings before it to be suitably recorded and preserved.  A copy of the transcript of such a proceeding shall be made available to any interested person upon the payment of a fee which shall in no case exceed the reasonable cost of preparation and supply;

  (5)  Records and documents of the agency which are to be considered in the case shall be offered in evidence so as to become a part of the record, the same as any other evidence, but the records and documents may be considered as a part of the record by reference thereto when so offered;

  (6)  Agencies shall take official notice of all matters of which the courts take judicial notice.  They may also take official notice of technical or scientific facts, not judicially cognizable, within their competence, if they notify the parties, either during a hearing or in writing before a hearing, or before findings are made after hearing, of the facts of which they propose to take such notice and give the parties reasonable opportunity to contest such facts or otherwise show that it would not be proper for the agency to take such notice of them;

  (7)  Evidence to which an objection is sustained shall, at the request of the party seeking to introduce the same, or at the instance of the agency, nevertheless be heard and preserved in the record, together with any cross-examination with respect thereto and any rebuttal thereof, unless it is wholly irrelevant, repetitious, privileged, or unduly long;

  (8)  Any evidence received without objection which has probative value shall be considered by the agency along with the other evidence in the case.  The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they are now or may hereafter be in civil actions.  Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded;

  (9)  Copies of writings, documents and records shall be admissible without proof that the originals thereof cannot be produced, if it shall appear by testimony or otherwise that the copy offered is a true copy of the original, but the agency may, nevertheless, if it believes the interests of justice so require, sustain any objection to such evidence which would be sustained were the proffered evidence offered in a civil action in the circuit court, but if it does sustain such an objection, it shall give the party offering such evidence reasonable opportunity and, if necessary, opportunity at a later date, to establish by evidence the facts sought to be proved by the evidence to which such objection is sustained;

  (10)  Any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence or event, shall be admissible as evidence of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, if it shall appear that it was made in the regular course of any business, and that it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event or within a reasonable time thereafter.  All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect the weight of such evidence, but such showing shall not affect its admissibility.  The term "business" shall include business, profession, occupation and calling of every kind;

  (11)  The results of statistical examinations or studies, or of audits, compilations of figures, or surveys, involving interviews with many persons, or examination of many records, or of long or complicated accounts, or of a large number of figures, or involving the ascertainment of many related facts, shall be admissible as evidence of such results, if it shall appear that such examination, study, audit, compilation of figures, or survey was made by or under the supervision of a witness, who is present at the hearing, who testifies to the accuracy of such results, and who is subject to cross-examination, and if it shall further appear by evidence adduced that the witness making or under whose supervision such examination, study, audit, compilation of figures, or survey was made was basically qualified to make it.  All the circumstances relating to the making of such an examination, study, audit, compilation of figures or survey, including the nature and extent of the qualifications of the maker, may be shown to affect the weight of such evidence but such showing shall not affect its admissibility;

  (12)  Any party or the agency desiring to introduce an affidavit in evidence at a hearing in a contested case may serve on all other parties (including, in a proper case, the agency) copies of such affidavit in the manner hereinafter provided, at any time before the hearing, or at such later time as may be stipulated.  Not later than seven days after such service, or at such later time as may be stipulated, any other party (or, in a proper case, the agency) may serve on the party or the agency who served such affidavit an objection to the use of the affidavit or some designated portion or portions thereof on the ground that it is in the form of an affidavit; provided, however, that if such affidavit shall have been served less than eight days before the hearing such objection may be served at any time before the hearing or may be made orally at the hearing.  If such objection is so served, the affidavit or the part thereof to which objection was made, may not be used except in ways that would have been permissible in the absence of this subdivision; provided, however, that such objection may be waived by the party or the agency making the same.  Failure to serve an objection as aforesaid, based on the ground aforesaid, shall constitute a waiver of all objections to the introduction of such affidavit, or of the parts thereof with respect to which no such objection was so served, on the ground that it is in the form of an affidavit, or that it constitutes or contains hearsay evidence, or that it is not, or contains matters which are not, the best evidence, but any and all other objections may be made at the hearing.  Nothing herein contained shall prevent the cross-examination of the affiant if he or she is present in obedience to a subpoena or otherwise and if he or she is present, he or she may be called for cross-examination during the case of the party who introduced the affidavit in evidence.  If the affidavit is admissible in part only it shall be admitted as to such part, without the necessity of preparing a new affidavit.  The manner of service of such affidavit and of such objection shall be by delivering or mailing copies thereof to the attorneys of record of the parties being served, if any, otherwise, to such parties, and service shall be deemed complete upon mailing; provided, however, that when the parties are so numerous as to make service of copies of the affidavit on all of them unduly onerous, the agency may make an order specifying on what parties service of copies of such affidavit shall be made, and in that case a copy of such affidavit shall be filed with the agency and kept available for inspection and copying.  Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent any use of affidavits that would be proper in the absence of this subdivision.

­­--------

(L. 1945 p. 1504 §§ 7, 8, A.L. 1957 p. 748 § 536.080, A.L. 1978 S.B. 661, A.L. 2011 H.B. 265)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 133 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Moore v. Missouri Dental Bd., 311 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
Moore v. Missouri Dental Bd., 311 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 55× “Section 536.070 (5) and (6) — The 2007 Stipulation and the 2007 Consent Order Sections 536.”
State Ex Rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 344 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 9× “130(1), which states that “[i]n any hearing, these [PSC] rules supplement section 536.070, RSMo,” governing offers of proof.”
State Ex Rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 328 S.W.3d 329 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 14× “Industrials rely heavily on their assumption they have an unfettered and unlimited “right” to subpoena witnesses, which they argue “is guaranteed under Section 536.070.” Section 536.070(2) contains no such “guarantee” but, instead, states the following: In any contested case:…”
Stegeman v. St. Francis Xavier Par., 611 S.W.2d 204 (Mo. 1981). · cites it 14× “" The dissenting judge found the Commission's action appropriate and cited § 536.070(6) RSMo 1978, which provides as follows: "Agencies shall take official notice of all matters of which the courts take judicial notice.”
City of Valley Park v. Armstrong, 273 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. 2009). · cites it 6× “067); oral evidence taken upon oath or affirmation and the cross-examination of witnesses (section 536.070); the making of a record (section 536.”
State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 4× “The AHC heard all of the evidence without ruling on its admissibility, as permitted by section 536.070(7), which provides that evidence subject to an objection "nevertheless be heard and preserved in the record.”
Tendai v. Missouri State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts, 161 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 6× “070(10), RSMo 2000, which provides that a record is admissible "if it shall appear that it was made in the regular course of any business, and that it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or…”
Lagud v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Commissioners, 136 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. 2004). · cites it 4× “banc 1987) (accord, citing section 536.070); Johnson v. Mo. Bd. of Nursing Adm’r, 130 S.”
Collins v. Dir. of Revenue, 691 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. 1985). · cites it 4× “This is because the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, § 536.070(2), RSMo 1978, provides each party with the opportunity to call and *255 examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits and "to impeach any witness regardless which party first called him to testify.”
Stewart v. Dir. of Revenue, 702 S.W.2d 472 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 5× “There is nothing in the language of either § 302.530.4 or § 536.070 that remotely supports this proposition.”
Boyd v. State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts, 916 S.W.2d 311 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “§ 536.070(7) RSMo 1994; Greene County Concerned Citizens v.”
Roorda v. City of Arnold, 142 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “In his third point, Roorda argues that the Board’s decision must be reversed because he was denied procedural due process and his right to a fair hearing, in that he was not given an opportunity to make certain offers of proof during the hearing, as required by § 536.070(7),…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(1) — 6 cases
Francisco Morfin v. Angel Werdehausen & Fam. Support Div., 448 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
Missouri State High. Patrol v. Robertson, 648 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
Eureka Fire Prot. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty. v. Hoene, 623 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(10) — 11 cases
Tendai v. Missouri State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts, 161 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. 2005). “070(10), RSMo 2000, which provides that a record is admissible "if it shall appear that it was made in the regular course of any business, and that it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or…”
J.C. Nichols Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 796 S.W.2d 16 (Mo. 1990).
Clear v. Missouri Coordinating Bd. for Higher Educ., 23 S.W.3d 896 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(11) — 10 cases
State Ex Rel. Pub. Couns. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 210 S.W.3d 344 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
State Ex Rel. Coffman v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 121 S.W.3d 534 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
Lenzini v. Columbia Foods, 829 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
Big River Tel. Co. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 440 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(12) — 5 cases
Johnson v. Missouri Bd. of Nursing Administrators, 130 S.W.3d 619 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
Franklin v. Bd. of Directors, Sch. Dist. of Kansas City, 772 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
Homa v. Carthage R-IX Sch. Dist., 345 S.W.3d 266 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(2) — 8 cases
Collins v. Dir. of Revenue, 691 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. 1985). “This is because the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, § 536.070(2), RSMo 1978, provides each party with the opportunity to call and *255 examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits and "to impeach any witness regardless which party first called him to testify.”
State Ex Rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 328 S.W.3d 329 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). “Industrials rely heavily on their assumption they have an unfettered and unlimited “right” to subpoena witnesses, which they argue “is guaranteed under Section 536.070.” Section 536.070(2) contains no such “guarantee” but, instead, states the following: In any contested case:…”
Lagud v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Commissioners, 136 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. 2004). “banc 1987) (accord, citing section 536.070); Johnson v. Mo. Bd. of Nursing Adm’r, 130 S.”
Stewart v. Dir. of Revenue, 702 S.W.2d 472 (Mo. 1986). “There is nothing in the language of either § 302.530.4 or § 536.070 that remotely supports this proposition.”
At & T Info. Sys., Inc. v. Wallemann, 827 S.W.2d 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(4) — 8 cases
Labrayere v. Goldberg, 605 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. 1980).
Coleman v. Missouri Sec'y of State, 313 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
State Ex Rel. Rogers v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 995 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
State Ex Rel. Sansone v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968).
Buff v. State Tax Comm'n of Missouri, 467 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. 1971).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(5) — 8 cases
Moore v. Missouri Dental Bd., 311 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). “Section 536.070 (5) and (6) — The 2007 Stipulation and the 2007 Consent Order Sections 536.”
Mark Wagner v. Missouri State Bd. of Nursing, 570 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).
Ruffin v. City of Clinton, 849 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
Missouri State High. Patrol v. Robertson, 648 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(6) — 10 cases
Moore v. Missouri Dental Bd., 311 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). “Section 536.070 (5) and (6) — The 2007 Stipulation and the 2007 Consent Order Sections 536.”
Stegeman v. St. Francis Xavier Par., 611 S.W.2d 204 (Mo. 1981). “" The dissenting judge found the Commission's action appropriate and cited § 536.070(6) RSMo 1978, which provides as follows: "Agencies shall take official notice of all matters of which the courts take judicial notice.”
Prokopf v. Whaley, 592 S.W.2d 819 (Mo. 1980).
Mark Wagner v. Missouri State Bd. of Nursing, 570 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).
Ruffin v. City of Clinton, 849 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(7) — 15 cases
State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. 2003). “The AHC heard all of the evidence without ruling on its admissibility, as permitted by section 536.070(7), which provides that evidence subject to an objection "nevertheless be heard and preserved in the record.”
State Ex Rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 344 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. 2011). “130(1), which states that “[i]n any hearing, these [PSC] rules supplement section 536.070, RSMo,” governing offers of proof.”
Boyd v. State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts, 916 S.W.2d 311 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 536.070(7) RSMo 1994; Greene County Concerned Citizens v.”
State Ex Rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 328 S.W.3d 329 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). “Industrials rely heavily on their assumption they have an unfettered and unlimited “right” to subpoena witnesses, which they argue “is guaranteed under Section 536.070.” Section 536.070(2) contains no such “guarantee” but, instead, states the following: In any contested case:…”
Roorda v. City of Arnold, 142 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “In his third point, Roorda argues that the Board’s decision must be reversed because he was denied procedural due process and his right to a fair hearing, in that he was not given an opportunity to make certain offers of proof during the hearing, as required by § 536.070(7),…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(8) — 22 cases
State Ex Rel. GS Tech. Operating Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 116 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
Gamble v. Hoffman, 732 S.W.2d 890 (Mo. 1987).
State Ex Rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 328 S.W.3d 329 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). “Industrials rely heavily on their assumption they have an unfettered and unlimited “right” to subpoena witnesses, which they argue “is guaranteed under Section 536.070.” Section 536.070(2) contains no such “guarantee” but, instead, states the following: In any contested case:…”
Roorda v. City of Arnold, 142 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “In his third point, Roorda argues that the Board’s decision must be reversed because he was denied procedural due process and his right to a fair hearing, in that he was not given an opportunity to make certain offers of proof during the hearing, as required by § 536.070(7),…”
Snider v. Missouri Highways & Transp. Comm'n, 356 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.070(9) — 1 case
Boyd v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of St. Louis, 657 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.