Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 545
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 545.290 (2026)

Statute of jeofails applicable to proceedings by information

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  545.290.  Statute of jeofails applicable to proceedings by information. — The statute of jeofails, as applicable to criminal pleadings and proceedings in prosecutions by indictment, shall apply to all proceedings in prosecutions by information; and any affidavit or information may be amended in matter of form or substance at any time by leave of court before the trial, and on the trial as to all matters of form and variance, at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant, on the merits, and no amendment shall cause any delay of the trial, except at the instance of the defendant for good cause shown by affidavit.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3898)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3508; 1919 § 3853; 1909 § 5061

(1951) Amendment of forgery information, after jury was sworn, to change date of offense from 13th of November to 14th, where check set out in information was dated "11-1449" held not erroneous. State v. Redding, 362 Mo. 39, 239 S.W.2d 494.

(1953) Amendment of information in robbery prosecution after trial had commenced to allege that person upon whom assault was made was agent of owner and in possession of money, held a matter of form only and not erroneous. State v. Stidham (Mo.), 258 S.W.2d 620.

(1960) The allowance of an amendment to a robbery information after close of state's case to charge that the amount taken from individual was $55 instead of $193 held proper where evidence showed that amount. State v. Clark (Mo.), 331 S.W.2d 588.

(1971) Amendment of information during trial in burglary prosecution to allege offense occurred between 11 p.m., March 31, 1970, and 12:35 a.m., April 1, 1970, instead of on April 1, 1970, held within judge's discretion. State v. Fowler (Mo.), 473 S.W.2d 353.

(1971) Defendant is not entitled to be released simply because the required number of terms have elapsed. He must show that he has demanded a trial and that such request was made without success for a reasonable length of time before his right to release is asserted. Failure to take affirmative action seeking speedy trial constitutes a waiver of that right and thus defendant's motion for discharge was correctly overruled.  State v. Harper (Mo.), 473 S.W.2d 419.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1953–1987 · leading case: State v. Cobb, 444 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. 1969).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cobb, 444 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. 1969). · cites it 4× “Such an amendment is permissible if no additional or different offense is charged and the substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
State v. Starks, 419 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. 1967). · cites it 10× “, supplanting §§ 545.290 and 545.300, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.”
State v. Thompson, 392 S.W.2d 617 (Mo. 1965). · cites it 4× “Section 545.290, relied on largely by the State as justifying the amendment and sometimes referred to as the statute of jeo-failes, provides generally that an information may be amended in form or substance by leave of court before trial when such can be done without prejudice…”
State v. Lane, 371 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. 1963). · cites it 5× “Compare this provision with that found in Section 545.290, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., which permitted amendments as to form or substance prior to trial and as to matters of form and variance at trial.”
State v. Mason, 650 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “By the statute of jeofails, Section 545.290, RSMo.1978, an information may be amended as to form or substance before trial.”
State v. Fenner, 358 S.W.2d 867 (Mo. 1962). · cites it 3× “Respondent insists that the essential question before the court is whether the information “properly charges the defendant with the offense of stealing by deceit” ; however, we have reached the conclusion that in view of other defects in this record we need not determine the…”
State v. Brookshire, 329 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959). · cites it 3× “The Supreme Court held that this contention did not call for a construction of said constitutional provisions, for the reason that defendant’s position was not that the authorized procedure employed (Sections 545.290 and 545.300, and Supreme Court Rule 24.”
State v. Green, 305 S.W.2d 863 (Mo. 1957). · cites it 2× “02) ; nor did it prejudice any substantial rights of the defendant (section 545.290). See also State v. Mandell, 353 Mo.”
State v. Hutchinson, 740 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “) Relying on this rule and § 545.290, RSMo 1986, “Missouri cases are to the effect that even if an essential element is omitted from the original information, it may be supplied by an amendment if no additional or different offense is charged and if the substantial rights of the…”
State v. Stidham, 258 S.W.2d 620 (Mo. 1953). · cites it 3× “" Section 545.290 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., reads: "The statute of jeofails, as applicable to criminal pleadings and proceedings in prosecutions by indictment, shall apply to all proceedings in prosecutions by information; and any affidavit or information may be amended in matter of…”
State v. Taylor, 375 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1964). “The mistake in the surname was cured by the statute of jeofails, § 545.290, V.A.M.S. Except for the name of the purchaser the proof would have been exactly the same under the indictment and under the substitute information.”
State v. Varner, 329 S.W.2d 623 (Mo. 1959). “§ 545.290; Supreme Court Rule 24.02 ; 42 C.”
Show all 29 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.