Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Marshall Trucking Co. v. State
Citations: 23 Ark. App. 110; 743 S.W.2d 16; 1988 Ark. App. LEXIS 38Docket: CA CR 87-51
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; January 27, 1988; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Marshall Trucking Company was convicted of operating an overweight vehicle, contravening Ark. Stat. Ann. 75-817. The conviction was upheld on appeal, with Officer Harold Spraggins testifying that he stopped the truck on June 13, 1985, due to its suspected overweight status. He weighed the truck by assessing each axle separately, resulting in a total weight of 80,700 pounds, exceeding the legal limit of 80,000 pounds. Although the scales used had not been tested within the customary six-month timeframe prior to the citation, they were tested a month later, showing only a 100-pound variance, which was deemed acceptable. The appellant contended that Officer Spraggins miscalculated the maximum allowable weight using an improper method, arguing that a specific mathematical formula from the statute should have been employed. However, the court clarified that this formula is intended to establish maximum legal carrying capacity, not the actual weight at a given time. Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the lack of certification for the scales invalidated their use as reliable evidence. The court found no statutory requirement for testing intervals that would necessitate excluding the evidence. Instead, it determined that the scales' untested status affected the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. The court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the officer's method and calculations were credible and sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. The trial court's determination that the appellant's truck violated Ark. Stat. Ann. 75-817 is upheld, supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from Chester Marshall, president of the appellant firm. He described the process of weighing trucks at the Georgia Pacific mill, where each truck is weighed upon arrival and after unloading, with drivers receiving duplicate weight tickets. A ticket from the appellant's file, indicating a gross weight of 80,060 pounds, was offered as evidence to challenge the police officer's weight assessment. Appellant argued for the ticket's admissibility under A.R.E. Rule 803(6), which allows business records to be admitted if made in the regular course of business and deemed trustworthy. The court referenced Cates v. State, which outlines seven criteria for business records' admissibility, and emphasized that the trial court has broad discretion in assessing trustworthiness. While the ticket met some criteria, it was ultimately deemed inadmissible because it referenced a memorandum from Georgia Pacific, and no witness verified the accuracy of Georgia Pacific’s weighing process or the operator's qualifications. The trial court's exclusion of the record was upheld, affirming that it lacked the required foundation for admission. Mayfield and Coulson, JJ. concurred.