## Facts

- The City of Webster Groves prosecuted Preston Quick for driving 40 mph in a 30‑mph zone in violation of a municipal speed ordinance.
- On March 4, 1957 around 8:00 a.m., Quick drove westbound on Kirkham Boulevard toward a parked police car headed east.
- An officer stopped Quick and stated an “electric timer” showed Quick’s speed as 40 mph.
- The device used a control panel with a stopwatch and wiring connected to two rubber tubes stretched across the street.
- The tubes were placed 132 feet apart; the device measured elapsed time between the vehicle striking the first and second tube and displayed speed on the dial.
- The officer testified he operated the device and read the speed directly from its dial.
- Quick disputed the speed, relying on his speedometer and asserting he did not exceed 30 mph.
- A police sergeant testified the stopwatch component was periodically checked by a technician in early 1957 to confirm accurate registration.
- Quick was found guilty and fined $10 in municipal court; a jury again convicted him and assessed the same fine in circuit court.

## Issues

1. Whether an officer’s testimony describing a mechanical speed timer’s dial reading is inadmissible hearsay.
2. Whether admitting such testimony violates confrontation or due process principles because the device itself cannot be cross-examined.
3. Whether the City laid an adequate foundation showing the device was properly constructed, operated, and accurate so that its reading was admissible and sufficient to support conviction.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction and $10 fine.
- The court held the officer’s testimony about the electric timer’s reading was not hearsay.
- The court rejected claims that use of the timer or testimony about its reading violated confrontation or due process.
- The court held the City presented sufficient foundational evidence of the device’s operation and accuracy; any remaining disputes went to weight for the jury.
- With the timer evidence admitted, the record contained substantial evidence supporting the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Hearsay doctrine applies to out-of-court human assertions; a machine’s output is not a “declarant’s statement” for hearsay purposes.
- A witness may testify to measurements obtained through scientific or mechanical instrumentation when the witness observed the instrument’s output and is subject to cross-examination.
- Evidence derived from a measuring device is admissible when the proponent shows the device’s method of operation and establishes it was in proper working order (including testing or verification); challenges to precision generally affect weight, not admissibility.
- Confrontation rights are satisfied by the ability to cross-examine the human witness who operated or read the device, rather than by treating the instrument as a witness.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a municipal speeding conviction, ruling that an officer’s testimony recounting the dial reading of a properly supported electric speed-timing device is not hearsay and does not create a confrontation violation, and that foundational proof of the device’s accuracy and operation supported admission and sufficiency of the evidence.


City of Webster Groves v. Quick, 323 S.W.2d 386 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959)