# Gamble v. Hoffman

> Missouri Court of Appeals · August 6, 1985 · 695 S.W.2d 503

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681494

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald W. GAMBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colonel Howard HOFFMAN and the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 6, 1985
- **Citations:** 695 S.W.2d 503; 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3514
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Somerville
- **Judges:** Somerville, Lowenstein, Som-Erville, Nugent
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681494

## Opinion text

SOMERVILLE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part.
My dissent lies with the strained logic of the majority opinion that Finding No. 30 of the Board erroneously shifted to Gamble the burden of impeaching Ms. Sears’ credibility as a witness.
Put in proper perspective, under Finding No. 30 the Board found Ms. Sears’ testimony to be more credible than that of Gamble and observed that Gamble had not offered any evidence attacking Ms. Sears’ credibility as a witness. To hold, as does the majority opinion, that such erroneously shifted the burden of proof to Gamble is tantamount to saying that the offering party carries the burden of attacking the credibility of his or her own witnesses. It is axiomatic that it is incumbent upon an opposing party to attack the credibility of an opposing witness, not upon the offering party to attack the credibility of his or her own witnesses as the flawed logic of the majority opinion would have us believe. Addressing the issue in terms of erroneously shifting the burden of proof, as does the majority opinion, distorts the entire matter and injects a totally false issue which has neither logic, fact nor case authority for its support. In pure, simple terms, the Board found Ms. Sears’ testimony credible and observed, albeit somewhat ineptly from a standpoint of pure legalese, that Gamble had not attempted to attack her credibility *510 on what appeared to the Board to be potentially salient grounds.
I would affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court affirming Gamble’s dismissal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681494. Public record. Not legal advice.