Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.160 (2026)

Effect of repeal of penal statute

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1.160. Effect of repeal of penal statute. — No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be affected by the repeal or amendment, but the trial and punishment of all such offenses, and the recovery of the fines, penalties or forfeitures shall be had, in all respects, as if the provision had not been repealed or amended, except that all such proceedings shall be conducted according to existing procedural laws.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 4861, A.L. 1957 p. 587, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2005 H.B. 353)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 4468; 1919 § 3709; 1909 § 4920

(1972) Where defendant was convicted of possession of narcotic drug and sentenced to three years imprisonment, his appeal argued and submitted on September 27, 1971, but prior to submission on August 31, 1971, appellant filed "Alternative Motion for Reduction of Sentence" based upon an amendment, effective September 28, 1971, of statute which reduced punishment for his offense to confinement in county jail for not more than one year or fine of $1,000, or both, supreme court remanded cause for assessment of punishment and judgment under the law as amended. State v. Reiley (Mo.), 476 S.W.2d 473.

(1972) Where appellant's conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana occurred at a time when the first conviction for that offense was a felony regardless of amount of marijuana involved and while appeal was pending an amendment to the law to make possession of thirty-five grams or less a misdemeanor became effective, the cause was remanded for assessment of punishment under the law as amended. State v. Hawkins (Mo.), 482 S.W.2d 477.

(1974) Held that when license was reinstated prior to effective date of amendatory act providing for elimination of points on reinstatement the act could not be applied retroactively. Ritter v. Schaffner (A.), 504 S.W.2d 207.

(1990) Where statute specifying punishment in effect at time of defendant's arrest was subsequently repealed and new statute, providing for lesser punishment, became effective few days prior to trial, defendant was entitled to benefit of reduced punishment. State v. Wright, 797 S.W.2d 811 (Mo. App.).

(2018) For purposes of this section, a parole eligibility provision within a statute defining an offense affects the prosecution, penalty, or punishment of offense, thus amended version of involuntary manslaughter statute was not retroactively applicable to parole eligibility for prisoner. Fields v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole, 559 S.W.3d 12 (W.D.Mo.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 182 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Kelly, 58 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Kelly, 58 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. 2001). · cites it 38× “The 1994 version of section 1.160 states: No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be affected by the repeal or amendment, but the…”

State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 21× “in the same manner as if this chapter had not been enacted, the provisions of section 1.160, RSMo, notwithstanding. *508 3.”

State v. Sumlin, 820 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 56× “First, does this Court have jurisdiction to hear this case? Second, does § 1.160 apply to this case? Third, if § 1.”

Fields v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 559 S.W.3d 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 28× “" Because Fields's claim is barred by § 1.160, the trial court did not err in granting the Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

State v. Graham, 13 S.W.3d 290 (Mo. 2000). · cites it 25× “Section 1.160, RSMo 1986, also in effect at that time provided that “if the penalty or punishment for any offense is reduced or lessened by any alteration of the law creating the offense, the penalty or punishment shall be assessed according to the amenda- *292 tory law.”

Prapotnik v. Crowe, 55 S.W.3d 914 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 32× “031 that applies is governed by § 1.160 RSMo 1994. Section 1.160 states: No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be affected by the…”

State v. Pritchard, 982 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. 1999). · cites it 44× “Section 1.160 1 governs: it provides that a defendant is to be tried for the offense as defined by the law that existed at the time of the offense, but the defendant is to be punished in accordance with the new law if the punishment prescribed has been reduced.”

Edwards v. State, 215 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 19× “The maximum sentence for the defendant’s offense changed while she was on probation and the Western District stated that “Section 1.160 RSMo (1986) ... provides that, when the punishment is reduced or lessened after the time of commission of an offense and while a prosecution is…”

State v. Helmig, 924 S.W.2d 562 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 23× “Section 1.160, RSMo 1994, provides that: No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be affected by the repeal or amendment, but the…”

Vaughan v. Taft Broad. Co., 708 S.W.2d 656 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 11× “Appellant contends that section 1.160, RSMo 1978, governs this issue because section 290.”

Dudley v. Agniel, 207 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 13× “7 is prohibited by section 1.160 RSMo (2000). Section 1.160 bars the retroactive application of substantive laws governing offenses.”

State v. Maples, 306 S.W.3d 153 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 21× “060 were amended, section 1.160, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993, provided: No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be effected by the repeal or…”

Show all 182 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.160(1) — 7 cases

State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Kelly, 58 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. 2001). “The 1994 version of section 1.160 states: No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be affected by the repeal or amendment, but the…”

Prapotnik v. Crowe, 55 S.W.3d 914 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “031 that applies is governed by § 1.160 RSMo 1994. Section 1.160 states: No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be affected by the…”

State v. Harris, 705 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

State v. Whiteaker, 499 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. 1973).

State v. Thornton, 651 S.W.2d 164 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.160(2) — 42 cases

State v. Jackson, 836 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Edwards v. State, 215 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). “The maximum sentence for the defendant’s offense changed while she was on probation and the Western District stated that “Section 1.160 RSMo (1986) ... provides that, when the punishment is reduced or lessened after the time of commission of an offense and while a prosecution is…”

State v. Helmig, 924 S.W.2d 562 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 1.160, RSMo 1994, provides that: No offense committed and no fine, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or prosecution commenced or pending previous to or at the time when any statutory provision is repealed or amended, shall be affected by the repeal or amendment, but the…”

Taylor v. State, 25 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.160(l) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.