545.140. Two or more persons and offenses may be charged in same indictment, when — separate counts for each offense — all defendants need not be joined in each count — separate trials, when — substantial prejudice, defined. — 1. Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.06, two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.
2. Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.07, two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or infractions, or any combination thereof, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.
3. Two or more defendants shall not be charged in the same indictment or information if substantial prejudice should result. For purposes of this section, "substantial prejudice" shall mean a bias or discrimination against one or more defendants or the state which is actually existing or real and not one which is merely imaginary, illusionary or nominal.
4. If two or more defendants are charged with being joint participants in a conspiracy charged under section 562.014, it shall be presumed that there is no substantial prejudice from them being charged in the same indictment or information or from them being tried together.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
State v. Harris, 705 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Harris, 705 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 5× “The current law authorizing the joinder of offenses is § 545.140(2) RSMo 1984, which provides: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State v. McKinney, 314 S.W.3d 339 (Mo. 2010).
· cites it 3× “” He argued that joinder was improper under section 545.140, RSMo 2000, 2 and Rule 23.”
State v. Langston, 889 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Section 545.140(2), RSMo (1986) authorizes joinder of two or more offenses if the offenses charged “are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme…”
State v. Winfield, 5 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Like section 545.140, Rule 23.05 permits the joinder of offenses that are “part of the same transaction .”
State v. Olds, 831 S.W.2d 713 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Joinder is governed by Section 545.140(2), RSMo 1986, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State v. Love, 293 S.W.3d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Instead, the State contends the offenses are sufficiently similar to permit joinder as the offenses are “of the same or similar character” and that the two acts or transactions are connected, pursuant to Section 545.140 and Rule 23.05. Because we find the charges are “of the…”
State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Joinder is governed by Section 545.140(2), RSMo 1986, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State v. Meder, 870 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “07, it overlooked the 1984 amendment to § 545.140 and the 1986 amendment of Rule 23.”
State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The Missouri statute authorizing the join-der of offenses is § 545.140(2) RSMo 1986, which provides: 2.”
State v. Morant, 758 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Joinder is governed by § 545.140(2) which provides as follows: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State v. White, 755 S.W.2d 363 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The statute authorizing joinder of offenses is § 545.140(2) which provides as follows: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State of Missouri v. Vincent E. Hood, 451 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Point I In his first point, Appellant claims the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying his Motion to Dismiss Improperly Joined Counts, or in the Alternative, for Severance of Offenses and in proceeding to trial on all seven counts of the indictment because Rule…”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 545.140(2): 14 cases
State v. Harris, 705 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
“The current law authorizing the joinder of offenses is § 545.140(2) RSMo 1984, which provides: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State v. Langston, 889 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
“Section 545.140(2), RSMo (1986) authorizes joinder of two or more offenses if the offenses charged “are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme…”
State v. Olds, 831 S.W.2d 713 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
“Joinder is governed by Section 545.140(2), RSMo 1986, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
“Joinder is governed by Section 545.140(2), RSMo 1986, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.”
State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
“The Missouri statute authorizing the join-der of offenses is § 545.140(2) RSMo 1986, which provides: 2.”
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.