Court Opinion

ID: 9611724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:59:47.575313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:16.401761
License: Public Domain

PREWITT, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would deny Appellant’s contentions because Respondent’s motion to suppress was not included in the record, which I view as a violation of *893Rule 81.12(a). It was Appellant’s duty to provide this Court with the necessary record to review the issues on appeal. See Van v. State, 990 S.W.2d 688, 684 (Mo.App. 1999). I do agree that at least the gist of the motion to suppress can be determined from the transcript of the hearing on that motion.
At that hearing, only Trooper Boix testified. The trial judge, as the trier-of-fact, could believe all or none of his testimony, and could have determined that the State did not meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to show that the motion to suppress should be denied. Also, as the majority noted, whether a consent is voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. The trial judge may well have found that based upon those circumstances the consent was the product of duress or coercion and was not voluntary.
The trial judge could also have found that, as stated in State v. Riddle, 843 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Mo.App.1992), there was no reasonable basis for the continuing detention of Respondent during which time the consent was requested.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.