Opinion

State Ex Rel. Division of Family Services v. Brown

  • 897 S.W.2d 154
  • 1995 WL 145023
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Filed
Apr 4, 1995
Status
Published
On the bench
Crow, Garrison, Prewitt
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.7%

The opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

In a motion for rehearing, Appellant contends there was “a satisfactory foundation ... for the admissibility of Defendant’s Exhibit A” in that it was “obtained by [Appellant] directly from the Assistant Prosecutor during the deposition of the child’s mother.” In support of this proposition, Appellant cites the following exchange, allegedly from the mother’s deposition:

“[Appellant’s attorney] — Do you have a copy of your Divorce Decree?

[Mother] — Yes; I do. Not with me.

[Appellant’s attorney] — Would you furnish one of those to your lawyer so he can furnish it to me?

[Mother] — Yeah.

[Assistant Prosecuting Attorney] — I have a copy of it.”

We need not decide whether the above dialogue would provide a sufficient foundation for admission of Defendant’s Exhibit A. Evidence extraneous to the trial court record is not considered on appeal. Crestwood Commons v. 66 Drive-In, Inc., 812 S.W.2d 903, 909 [3] (Mo.App.E.D.1991). The mother’s deposition is not part of the record, and there is no indication from the record that the above colloquy was presented to the trial court. Appellate review cannot be based on evidence not offered at trial nor included in the appeal transcript. Asarco, Inc. v. McNeill, 750 S.W.2d 122, 130 [5] (Mo.App.S.D.1988).

The motion for rehearing is denied.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.