Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 491
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.400 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  491.400.  Definitions. — As used in sections 491.400 to 491.450 the following terms mean and include:

  (1)  "State", any territory of the United States and District of Columbia.

  (2)  "Summons", a subpoena, order or other notice requiring the appearance of a witness.

  (3)  "Witness", a person whose testimony is desired in any proceeding or investigation by a grand jury or in a criminal action, prosecution or proceeding.

­­--------

(L. 1959 H.B. 295 § 2)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: State v. Lutes, 557 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lutes, 557 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The burden is satisfied where the State shows that it obtained an out-of-state subpoena that orders the victim to appear and testify at trial, such as the procedure provided by section 491.400 et seq. , which is Missouri's enactment of the Uniform Law to Secure Attendance of…”
Armstrong v. Kemna, 534 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008). “This exchange further emphasizes trial counsel’s mistaken logic, for even assuming trial counsel could have reasonably believed the subpoena “sounded more like a summons” and thus would be unenforceable, a cursory review of Missouri’s Uniform Act and the Wisconsin Uniform Act…”
State v. Irby, 254 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “This burden is satisfied if the prosecution makes use of an out-of-state subpoena, such as that provided for in Section 491.400 et. seq. Id. 7 We review a trial court’s finding that the prosecution has made a good faith effort to bring a witness to trial for an abuse of…”
State v. Gray, 616 S.W.2d 102 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Section 491.400 to 491.450, RSMo 1978; K.”
State v. Closterman, 687 S.W.2d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “The defendant had requested that his wife, Linda (Sherry) Closterman, be summoned as a witness under the “Uniform Law to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Within and Without a State in Criminal Proceedings,” § 491.400, RSMo 1978, (herein referred to as “The Act”).”
State v. Ivory, 609 S.W.2d 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). “We first consider whether the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to secure attendance of out-of-state witnesses under the provision of the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, § 491.400 et seq. RSMo…”
State v. Hicks, 591 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). “See Uniform Law to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without State in Criminal Proceedings: §§ 491.400 to 491.450, RSMo, V.A.M.S.”
State v. Moore, 882 S.W.2d 253 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). “§ 491.400 et seq. Under the Uniform Law, the burden is on the party seeking the presence of the witness to establish the materiality and necessity of the witness.”
State v. Winrod, 68 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). “Defendant then maintains the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte compel the attendance of these witnesses under the provisions of the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, §§ 491.400 through 491.450…”
Friend v. Morrow, 558 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “” § 491.400(3) RSMo 1969. The definition does not exclude parties.”
State v. Woods, 336 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). “See Sections 491.400 to 491.450 RSMo 2000 4 and 42 Pa.”
Brodkowicz v. Swenson, 357 F. Supp. 178 (W.D. Mo. 1973). “The Uniform Act to secure the attendance of witnesses, § 491.400 to § 491.450, RSMo, V.A.M.S., does not provide for advancement of public funds for this purpose.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.400(2): 1 case
Armstrong v. Kemna, 534 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008). “This exchange further emphasizes trial counsel’s mistaken logic, for even assuming trial counsel could have reasonably believed the subpoena “sounded more like a summons” and thus would be unenforceable, a cursory review of Missouri’s Uniform Act and the Wisconsin Uniform Act…”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.400(3): 1 case
Friend v. Morrow, 558 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). “” § 491.400(3) RSMo 1969. The definition does not exclude parties.”
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.