323 S.W.2d 386 (Mo. App. 1959)
Defendant appealed his conviction and fine for violation of a city speeding ordinance to the supreme court. The supreme court held that defendant's purported constitutional issues were without substance, finding his constitutional rights under U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI were not violated when permitting of police officer to testify regarding an electric timer reading. The case was transferred to the appeals court, which determined that the trial court properly permitted the officer to testify that the electric timer reading showed defendant's speed at 40 miles per hour.
- The hearsay rule did not apply, because the officer's testimony did not constitute hearsay evidence, since the officer himself testified to the reading of the mechanism in question and not to what someone else had told him.
- The court found that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury in this case.
Judgment against defendant was affirmed because there was no error in the record when a police officer's testimony regarding an electric timer reading did not constitute hearsay and was admissible at trial.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.