State v. Lord

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…