Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 494
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 494.400 (2026)

Qualifications of jurors, selection, exclusions prohibited

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

  494.400.  Qualifications of jurors, selection, exclusions prohibited. — All persons qualified for grand or petit jury service shall be citizens of the state and shall be selected at random from a fair cross section of the citizens of the county or of a city not within a county for which the jury may be impaneled, and all such citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for jury service and an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose, unless excused.  A citizen of the county or of a city not within a county for which the jury may be impaneled shall not be excluded from selection for possible grand or petit jury service on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.

­­--------

(L. 1989 S.B. 127, et al., A.L. 2004 S.B. 1211)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: State v. Hofmann, 895 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hofmann, 895 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 7× “In his first point on appeal, Hofmann argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to quash the venire panel because the panel was improperly selected in violation of section 494.400, RSMo Supp.1993. Hofmann argues that the venire panel did not constitute a fair cross…”
Hudson v. State, 248 S.W.3d 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “Section 494.400 states, “All persons qualified for grand or petit jury service shall be citizens of the state and shall be selected at random from a fair cross section of the citizens of the county[.”
Preston v. State, 325 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “Preston argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his amended motion because the Lincoln County jury selection procedures, which permitted qualified jurors to decline jury service by agreeing to pay $50 and perform six hours of community service, substantially failed…”
State v. Plummer, 860 S.W.2d 340 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Plummer claims the trial court failed to comply with §§ 494.400 through 494.505 RSMo (Cum.Supp.”
State v. Pullen, 843 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. 1992). · cites it 2× “It should be noted that § 494.400, RSMo Supp. 1990, prohibits exclusion from selection for possible jury service on account of sex.”
State ex rel. Sitton v. Norman, 406 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. 2013). · cites it 8× “Section 494.400 provides that “[a]ll persons qualified for grand or petit jury service .”
State ex rel. Koster v. McCarver, 376 S.W.3d 46 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “2010), which considered whether the Lincoln County opt-out program substantially failed to comply with the Missouri statutes governing juries, Sections 494.400 to 494.505. Id. at 421 .”
State v. Cross, 887 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “Section 494.400, RSMo Supp.1990, provides that all persons qualified for petit jury ser *792 vice “shall be selected at random from a fair cross section of the citizens of the county.”
State v. Baldridge, 857 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Defendant argues in her eighth and ninth points that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in refusing to select Defendant’s prospective jurors according to the newly enacted statutory provisions of §§ 494.400 to 494.505, RSMo Supp.1989. Specifically, Defendant argues…”
State v. Daniels, 861 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “Section 494.400 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1989) requires that all persons qualified for grand or petit jury service be selected at random from a fair cross section of the citizens of the City of St.”
State v. Simms, 859 S.W.2d 943 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “202; 2) defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of other crimes committed by defendant; 3) defendant avers the trial court erred by overruling his motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the proceedings because the grand and pet-it…”
State v. Jolliff, 867 S.W.2d 256 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “missibly attempt to commit the jury to a future course of conduct; (5) denying defendant’s motion to quash the jury panel on the basis that the prosecutor exercised the state’s peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner; (6) overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss…”
Show all 37 citing 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.