Court Opinion

ID: 9772604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:23:41.239102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:46.190601
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In a motion for rehearing, Appellant contends there was “a satisfactory foundation ... for the admissibility of Defendant’s Exhibit A” in that it was “obtained by [Appellant] directly from the Assistant Prosecutor during the deposition of the child’s mother.” In support of this proposition, Appellant cites the following exchange, allegedly from the mother’s deposition:
“[Appellant’s attorney] — Do you have a copy of your Divorce Decree?
[Mother] — Yes; I do. Not with me.
[Appellant’s attorney] — Would you furnish one of those to your lawyer so he can furnish it to me?
[Mother] — Yeah.
[Assistant Prosecuting Attorney] — I have a copy of it.”
We need not decide whether the above dialogue would provide a sufficient foundation for admission of Defendant’s Exhibit A. Evidence extraneous to the trial court record is not considered on appeal. Crestwood Commons v. 66 Drive-In, Inc., 812 S.W.2d 903, 909[3] (Mo.App.E.D.1991). The mother’s deposition is not part of the record, and there is no indication from the record that the above colloquy was presented to the trial court. Appellate review cannot be based on evidence not offered at trial nor included in the appeal transcript. Asarco, Inc. v. McNeill, 750 S.W.2d 122, 130[5] (Mo.App.S.D.1988).
The motion for rehearing is denied.