491.420. Witness from another state summoned to testify in this state. — 1. If a person in any state, which by its laws has made provision for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution pending in a court of record in this state, or in a grand jury investigation which has commenced or is about to commence, a judge of such court may issue a certificate under the seal of the court stating these facts and specifying the number of days the witness will be required. The certificate may include a recommendation that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state. This certificate shall be presented to a judge of a court of record in the county in which the witness is found.
2. If the witness is summoned to attend and testify in this state he shall be tendered by the treasurer of the county in which the prosecution is pending the sum of ten cents a mile for each mile by the ordinary traveled route to and from the court where the prosecution is pending, and fifteen dollars for each day that he is required to travel and attend as a witness. A witness who has appeared in accordance with the provisions of the summons shall not be required to remain within this state a longer period of time than the period mentioned in the certificate, unless otherwise ordered by the court. If the witness, after coming into this state, fails without good cause to attend and testify as directed in the summons, he shall be punished in the manner provided for the punishment of any witness who disobeys a summons issued from a court of record in this state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1973–2008 · leading case:
Garton v. Swenson, 417 F. Supp. 697 (W.D. Mo. 1976).
Garton v. Swenson, 417 F. Supp. 697 (W.D. Mo. 1976).
· cites it 19× “After noting that “there is nothing in the record to show that counsel was familiar with the provisions of § 491.420, V.A.M.S., whereby out-of-state witnesses could have been subpoenaed” and that “§ 491.”
State v. Ivory, 609 S.W.2d 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “The trial court’s finding that defendant had not complied with § 491.420 at the time the motion was heard, was not a ruling excluding the testimony of the persons named in the motion.”
State v. Irby, 254 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “1 The State obtained a certificate pursuant to Section 491.420 identifying Ms. Frein as a necessary and material witness and requesting that a North Carolina court compel her testimony.”
Armstrong v. Kemna, 534 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008).
“See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 491.420 (describing procedure for summoning a witness from anoth *860 er state to testify in Missouri).”
State v. Wells, 701 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “However, advance payment of mileage to the witness was authorized by the judge, a check was issued by the county treasurer, and sent to the witness by defendant’s attorney.”
State v. Duncan, 648 S.W.2d 892 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Per § 491.420 RSMo 1978 (a/k/a the Uniform Law to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Within and Without State in Criminal Proceedings), defendant filed a pretrial motion to summons Wilmer Strode, the state’s prosecuting witness, as a witness for defendant.”
Garton v. Swenson, 367 F. Supp. 1355 (W.D. Mo. 1973).
“If we were free to apply any standard oth *1365 er than the “farce and mockery” rule, we would, as we have indicated, deem it necessary to conduct a further eviden-tiary hearing to ascertain whether defendant’s counsel or anyone else involved in the case, were familiar with the…”
William Armstrong v. Mike Kemna (8th Cir. 2008).
“See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.420 (describing procedure for summoning a witness from another state to testify in Missouri).”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.420(1): 1 case
State v. Ivory, 609 S.W.2d 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
“The trial court’s finding that defendant had not complied with § 491.420 at the time the motion was heard, was not a ruling excluding the testimony of the persons named in the motion.”
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.