2017 Missouri Revised Statutes
Title XXXVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Chapter 545 Proceedings Before Trial
Section 545.290 Statute of jeofails applicable to proceedings by information.

Effective 28 Aug 1939

Title XXXVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

545.290. Statute of jeofails applicable to proceedings by information. — The statute of jeofails, as applicable to criminal pleadings and proceedings in prosecutions by indictment, shall apply to all proceedings in prosecutions by information; and any affidavit or information may be amended in matter of form or substance at any time by leave of court before the trial, and on the trial as to all matters of form and variance, at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant, on the merits, and no amendment shall cause any delay of the trial, except at the instance of the defendant for good cause shown by affidavit.

(RSMo 1939 § 3898)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3508; 1919 § 3853; 1909 § 5061

(1951) Amendment of forgery information, after jury was sworn, to change date of offense from 13th of November to 14th, where check set out in information was dated “11-1449” held not erroneous. State v. Redding, 362 Mo. 39, 239 S.W.2d 494.

(1953) Amendment of information in robbery prosecution after trial had commenced to allege that person upon whom assault was made was agent of owner and in possession of money, held a matter of form only and not erroneous. State v. Stidham (Mo.), 258 S.W.2d 620.

(1960) The allowance of an amendment to a robbery information after close of state's case to charge that the amount taken from individual was $55 instead of $193 held proper where evidence showed that amount. State v. Clark (Mo.), 331 S.W.2d 588.

(1971) Amendment of information during trial in burglary prosecution to allege offense occurred between 11 p.m., March 31, 1970, and 12:35 a.m., April 1, 1970, instead of on April 1, 1970, held within judge's discretion. State v. Fowler (Mo.), 473 S.W.2d 353.

(1971) Defendant is not entitled to be released simply because the required number of terms have elapsed. He must show that he has demanded a trial and that such request was made without success for a reasonable length of time before his right to release is asserted. Failure to take affirmative action seeking speedy trial constitutes a waiver of that right and thus defendant's motion for discharge was correctly overruled. State v. Harper (Mo.), 473 S.W.2d 419.