City of Webster Groves v. Quick
323 S.W.2d 386 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness's testimony regarding a reading personally observed on a scientific instrument is not inadmissible hearsay, provided a foundation is laid establishing the instrument's reliability and accuracy.
Facts:
- On March 4, 1957, the Webster Groves police department set up an electric timer to measure vehicle speeds on Kirkham Boulevard, a 30-mile-per-hour zone.
- The device consisted of two rubber tubes placed 132 feet apart on the road, connected by cable to a control box with a stopwatch inside a parked police car.
- Police Officer Maurice Paillou, stationed in the police car, observed a vehicle driven by the defendant approaching the device.
- Officer Paillou activated the timer and personally witnessed the stopwatch start when the defendant's car crossed the first tube and stop when it crossed the second.
- The stopwatch dial indicated a speed of 40 miles per hour.
- The officer then stopped the defendant and informed him of the violation.
- The timing device was tested for accuracy on the day of the incident by driving a police vehicle through it, and its stopwatch component was regularly calibrated by a professional jeweler.
- The defendant testified that his own recently tested speedometer showed a speed of 28 to 30 miles per hour.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Webster Groves filed a complaint against the defendant in the City Court of Webster Groves for violating a municipal speed ordinance.
- The defendant was found guilty in the City Court (a court of first instance).
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.
- Following a trial in the Circuit Court, a jury found the defendant guilty and a judgment was entered against him.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Missouri, claiming constitutional violations.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the constitutional claims were insubstantial and transferred the cause to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's testimony as to the speed of a vehicle, based on the officer's direct observation of a reading from an electric timing device, constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, J.
No. The officer's testimony regarding the reading of the electric timer does not constitute hearsay. The hearsay rule applies when a witness's testimony relies on the credibility of an out-of-court declarant. Here, the officer testified to his own direct sensory observation of the instrument's reading. The officer was under oath and subject to cross-examination, satisfying the core principles of the hearsay rule. The court reasoned that treating this as hearsay would lead to absurd results, such as barring a doctor from testifying about what a fluoroscope revealed or a surveyor about a measurement from a measuring device. The reliability of the instrument is a matter of foundation and weight for the jury, not a question of hearsay. In this case, the prosecution provided sufficient evidence of the device's accuracy through testimony about its daily testing and monthly calibration.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the admissibility of evidence derived from scientific and mechanical instruments in the face of hearsay challenges. It clarifies that an operator's testimony about an instrument's reading is direct, observational evidence, not a recitation of an out-of-court statement. This precedent paved the way for the routine admission of evidence from radar guns, breathalyzers, and other technological tools in criminal and civil litigation. The decision effectively shifts the focus of the legal argument from hearsay to the foundational requirements of demonstrating the device's accuracy and the operator's competence.
Unlock the full brief for City of Webster Groves v. Quick