City of Webster Groves v. Quick

Supreme Court of Missouri · Evidence

Evidencemunicipal ordinancecivil penaltyconfrontationcross-examinationhearsaycolorable constitutional claimappellate jurisdiction

Facts

Quick was charged with driving 40 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour district in Webster Groves in violation of a city ordinance. A city witness testified about Quick's speed based in part on readings from an "electric speed watch" or "electric timer." Quick argued that testimony describing what the timer showed was hearsay and deprived him of confrontation and cross-examination because the timer itself could not be cross-examined. The record also showed Quick cross-examined the city's witnesses and testified that his speedometer showed 28 to 30 miles per hour.

Issue

Did Quick's objections to testimony based on an electric timer present a real constitutional issue of confrontation, cross-examination, or due process sufficient to invoke the Supreme Court of Missouri's jurisdiction? More specifically, do constitutional confrontation guarantees apply to a municipal ordinance enforcement proceeding of this kind?

Rule

The Sixth Amendment applies only to federal proceedings, not state-court proceedings. Under Missouri law, constitutional protections applicable to criminal prosecutions against the state, including the face-to-face confrontation provision in Article I, section 18(a), do not apply to municipal proceedings for ordinance violations because such proceedings are civil actions to recover a debt or penalty, not criminal prosecutions in the constitutional sense. For appellate jurisdiction, an asserted constitutional question must be real and substantial, not merely colorable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Springfield, Missouri, the city fined Lena Ortiz $75 for violating a municipal noise ordinance after an officer testified about readings from a handheld decibel meter. On appeal, Lena argues that Article I, section 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution was violated because the meter itself could not be confronted face to face.

How should a Missouri appellate court evaluate Lena's constitutional argument?

Explanation. The majority treated municipal ordinance proceedings as civil actions to recover a penalty due the city, not criminal prosecutions in the constitutional sense. Therefore Missouri's face-to-face confrontation guarantee for criminal prosecutions does not apply. The opinion did not hold that device evidence is automatically admissible or inadmissible on hearsay grounds; it held only that such an objection did not create a valid confrontation issue in this setting. (Derived from City of Webster Groves v. Quick (n.d.).)