Opinion ID: 2358702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Consideration of Administrative Record

Text: The director alleges evidence to support the decision to revoke or deny is not required during the hearing to prove the grounds for these actions because the only requirement for the trial court to uphold the director's revocation and denial is that it review the administrative record filed with it several months before the hearing. The director contends that the administrative record sufficiently established that Wampler had accumulated enough points to earn a one-year revocation and that he had been convicted of driving while intoxicated on three separate occasions requiring the ten-year denial of his driving privilege. Because Wampler presented no contrary evidence during the hearing, the director maintains that the revocation and denial were proper actions. The prosecuting attorney representing the director presented no evidence, failed to offer the certified record previously filed, and declined the court's invitation to request a continuance. The director now contends that when a trial court reviews a case under section 302.311, it must consider the administrative record filed with the court, citing Lane v. Director of Revenue, 996 S.W.2d 117, 118 (Mo.App.1999). The director relies on section 302.312.1, RSMo Supp.1997. This statute provides that department of revenue records, when properly certified, shall be admissible as evidence in all courts of this state and in all administrative proceedings. However, that a document or record is admissible does not mean it is automatically admitted into evidence merely because it has been filed in a case or attached to a pleading. While section 302.311 allows an appeal in the manner provided by chapter 536, RSMo, the cause is to be heard de novo. [4] The director is required, as are proponents in other de novo civil cases, to put into evidence that which the fact finder is asked to consider. The judge is not required to leaf through a file to determine what should be used as evidence. Merely filing a document does not put it before the court as evidence. Hopkins v. Hopkins, 664 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Mo.App.1984). To the extent Lane finds that records filed by the director are sufficient, although the records are never introduced into evidence, it should no longer be followed. The judgment is affirmed. PRICE, C.J., LIMBAUGH, WHITE, HOLSTEIN, WOLFF and BENTON, JJ., concur. LAURA DENVIR STITH, J., not participating.