Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.037 (2026)

Chemical tests, results admitted into evidence, when, effect of

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

577.037. Chemical tests, results admitted into evidence, when, effect of. — 1. Upon the trial of any person for any criminal offense or violations of county or municipal ordinances, or in any license suspension or revocation proceeding pursuant to the provisions of chapter 302, arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while operating a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or acting as a flight crew member of any aircraft, while in an intoxicated condition or with an excessive blood alcohol content, the amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time of the act, as shown by any chemical analysis of the person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine, is admissible in evidence and the provisions of subdivision (5) of section 491.060 shall not prevent the admissibility or introduction of such evidence if otherwise admissible.

2. If a chemical analysis of the defendant's breath, blood, saliva, or urine demonstrates there was eight-hundredths of one percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood, this shall be prima facie evidence that the person was intoxicated at the time the specimen was taken. If a chemical analysis of the defendant's breath, blood, saliva, or urine demonstrates that there was less than eight-hundredths of one percent of alcohol in the defendant's blood, any charge alleging a criminal offense related to the operation of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft while in an intoxicated condition shall be dismissed with prejudice unless one or more of the following considerations cause the court to find a dismissal unwarranted:

(1) There is evidence that the chemical analysis is unreliable as evidence of the defendant's intoxication at the time of the alleged violation due to the lapse of time between the alleged violation and the obtaining of the specimen;

(2) There is evidence that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance, or drug, or a combination of either or both with or without alcohol; or

(3) There is substantial evidence of intoxication from physical observations of witnesses or admissions of the defendant.

3. Percent by weight of alcohol in the blood shall be based upon grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath.

4. The foregoing provisions of this section shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether the person was intoxicated.

5. A chemical analysis of a person's breath, blood, saliva or urine, in order to give rise to the presumption or to have the effect provided for in subsection 2 of this section, shall have been performed as provided in sections 577.020 to 577.041 and in accordance with methods and standards approved by the state department of health and senior services.

--------

(L. 1982 S.B. 513, A.L. 1983 S.B. 318 & 135, A.L. 1988 H.B. 1242 Revision, A.L. 1993 S.B. 167 merged with S.B. 180, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1169 & 1271 merged with S.B. 722, A.L. 2001 H.B. 302 & 38, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491, A.L. 2014 H.B. 1371, A.L. 2016 H.B. 2332)

Effective 1-01-17

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Kristin Nicole Stiers v. Dir. of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kristin Nicole Stiers v. Dir. of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 22× “Section 577.037, not a DHSS regulation, sets out the standards for admission of breath test results.”

O'Rourke v. Dir. of Revenue, 409 S.W.3d 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “In his second point, Director argues the trial court erred in reinstating O’Rourke’s driving privileges because the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and was not supported by substantial evidence, in that O’Rourke did not produce any evidence to rebut the statutory…”

Murphy v. Dir. of Revenue, 170 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 18× “As set forth below, we hold that under the plain language of section 577.037, the results of the blood test taken by the arresting officer in violation of section 577.”

State of Missouri ex rel. Willis McCree, Relator v. The Honorable Wesley Dalton, 573 S.W.3d 44 (Mo. 2019). · cites it 23× “Section 577.037 does not provide for a pretrial hearing or pretrial determination by the circuit court.”

State v. Davis, 203 S.W.3d 796 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Defendant contends this instruction was not an accurate statement of the substantive law set forth in Section 577.037. *799 That provision directs, in pertinent part, that “if there was eight-hundredths of one percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood, this…”

State v. White, 722 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 13× “(Section 577.037, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984, 1 allows a presumption of intoxication where there is .”

Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1996). · cites it 4× “§ 577.037 RSMo 1994. It is for the trier of fact to determine the weight of such alcohol evidence on plaintiff's decision to travel with an intoxicated driver.”

Reed v. Dir. of Revenue, 184 S.W.3d 564 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 6× “Section 577.037, RSMo Supp.2003, governs the admissibility of chemical tests to establish a driver's blood alcohol content in license suspension and revocation proceedings.”

State of Missouri v. Richard W. Mattix, 482 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Per section 577.037, breath alcohol test results are only admissible if the test was validly performed, and “[t]he validity of a breath test necessarily must be determined and fixed at the time the test is conducted.”

State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Although a prima facie case of intoxication is established, pursuant to § 577.037, when a chemical analysis reveals a driver's blood alcohol concentration to be ten-hundredths of one percent (.”

Covert v. Dir. of Revenue, 344 S.W.3d 272 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “The Director argues the trial court erred in setting aside the suspension of Driver’s driving privileges because the trial court misinterpreted Sections 577.037, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008, 1 and 577.”

State v. Hoy, 219 S.W.3d 796 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Because Defendant’s blood-alcohol content was zero on the chemical test of his urine specimen, we must address Defendant’s suffieiency-of-the-evidence claim within the framework of § 577.037. State v. Falcone, 918 S.W.2d 288, 292 (Mo.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.037(4) — 1 case

Woodall v. Dir. of Revenue, 795 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

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.