The testimony of a single witness, if believed by the finder of fact, is enough to establish a fact. See State v. Murphy, 358 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011).
Second, the fact that the State utilized the uniform citation as its charging document alone does not render it insufficient. See State v. Murphy, 358 S.W.3d 126, 133 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (noting Missouri courts regularly uphold use of a uniform citation specifying facts of offense as proper charging document when signed by prosecutor and filed in appropriate court). The uniform citation here is signed by the police officer, Defendant, and the prosecutor.
The failure of a respondent to file a brief on appeal is an imposition on the court and leaves us dependent upon an appellant's presentation and our own research; however, because no penalty is imposed by statute or rule, we proceed to determine the case on its merits.State v. Murphy, 358 S.W.3d 126, 128 n. 2 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 as currently supplemented, unless otherwise indicated.
Under our standard of review, the trial court was not required to credit that testimony. State v. Murphy, 358 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Mo.App. S.D.2011) (the trial judge can believe some or all of a witness' testimony and may disbelieve even uncontradicted testimony); cf. State v. Gaw, 285 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Mo. banc 2009) (the trial court is in a superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses testifying in a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence). Even if the trial court had found it credible, such anxiety may still appropriately be determined insufficient when the defendant has failed to demonstrate impairment of his defense.