Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.074 (2026)
Prior inconsistent statement may be admissible in criminal cases as substantive evidence
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
491.074. Prior inconsistent statement may be admissible in criminal cases as substantive evidence. — Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, a prior inconsistent statement of any witness testifying in the trial of a criminal offense shall be received as substantive evidence, and the party offering the prior inconsistent statement may argue the truth of such statement.
--------
(L. 1985 H.B. 366, et al., A.L. 2000 S.B. 757 & 602)
(1987) The term "prior inconsistent statements" as used in this section has the same meaning as judicial definitions of such term before effective date of this section. State v. Dunn, 731 S.W.2d 297 (Mo.App.W.D.).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. 2003).
State Ex Rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. 2003). “Section 491.074, RSMo 2000, [1] specifically provides that these three witnesses' prior testimony remains as substantive evidence against Mr.”
State of Missouri v. Eugene Culpepper, Jr., 505 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “r’s; (6) overruling defense counsel’s objection to Exhibit 33—Merryman’s videotaped statement to police because in it she identified Culpepper as “Eugene Johnson”; (7) overruling defense counsel’s objection to the admission and publication of Exhibit 33 by Detective Cole as a…”
State v. Bowman, 741 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. 1987). “He appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, which transferred the case here because the defendant challenges the constitutionality of Section 491.074, RSMo 1986, under the confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, and Art.”
State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1992). “If we are to allow prior statements as substantive evidence, it is idle to argue at length about whether the statements are "inconsistent".”
State v. Sanders, 126 S.W.3d 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). “, the record shows it planned to impeach him with and argue the truth of his prior inconsistent statements concerning the photographs to Chamberlin, Clevinger, and Miller pursuant to section 491.074, which provides: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, a…”
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. 2009). “On appeal she argues that: (1) § 491.074, RSMo 2000, is unconstitutional as applied and violates the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v.”
State of Missouri v. Dyanthany Proudie, 493 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “On appeal, Defendant contends the testimony was admissible as substantive evidence of an alternative perpetrator and, because it was a prior inconsistent statement, was admissible as substantive evidence under Section 491.074. We agree that these are the grounds on which this…”
State v. Cravens, 132 S.W.3d 919 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 491.074, RSMo, 1996; State v. Hawkins, 690 S.”
State v. Archuleta, 955 S.W.2d 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 491.074, RSMo 1996. Section 491.074 provides that: Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, a prior inconsistent statement of any witness testifying in the trial of an offense under chapter 565, 566 or 568, RSMo, shall be received as substantive evidence…”
State v. Betts, 559 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “Since Pierce , courts have consistently held that prior inconsistent statements are *55 admissible as substantive evidence, pursuant to Section 491.074. 2 See State v. Stufflebean , 548 S.”
State v. Clark, 756 S.W.2d 565 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “Even were there to be some authoritative analogy to be drawn from Byrd , however, the effect of that opinion has been diminished if not negated by the enactment of § 491.074, RSMo 1986, 1 and by the court’s opinion in Rowe v.”
State v. Jennings, 815 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). “A witness’s prior inconsistent statements traditionally were admitted as evidence solely for purposes of impeachment, and juries were duly instructed of their limited use; however, the enactment in 1985 of § 491.074 RSMo 1986 displaced prior case law in criminal cases.”
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.