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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 545.300 (2026)

Informations

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

  545.300.  Informations — amendment — substitution for defective indictment. — An information may be amended either as to form or substance at any time before the jury is sworn, but no such amendment shall be allowed as would operate to charge an offense different from that charged or attempted to be charged in the original information.  If an indictment be held to be insufficient either as to form or substance, an information charging the same offense charged or attempted to be charged in such indictment may be substituted therefor at any time before the jury is sworn.  No amendment of the information or substitution of an information for an indictment as herein provided shall cause a delay of the trial unless the defendant shall satisfy the court that such amendment or substitution has made it necessary that he have additional time in which to prepare his defense.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3953)

Prior revision: 1929 § 3564

(1953) The right of the state to substitute an information for a defective indictment is intended to be exercised in the discretion of the prosecuting attorney and court has no power to control such discretion. State ex rel. Downs v. Kimberlin, 364 Mo. 215, 260 S.W.2d 552.

(1956) Where conviction was had on information based on city ordinance which was repealed at time of alleged offense, appellate court could not remand case for trial on ordinance which was in effect at such time, where the later ordinance was not in evidence. City of St. Louis v. Vetter (A.), 293 S.W.2d 140.

(1957) Order holding indictment insufficient held not necessary in order to permit substitution of information therefor.  State v. Green (Mo.), 305 S.W.2d 863.

(1958) It was not abuse of discretion for trial judge to permit amendment of information charging robbery in first degree so as to charge defendant also as a habitual criminal when the record did not evidence any bad faith on part of prosecuting attorney and the state had additional evidence to show three prior felony convictions and subsequent discharge therefor though the jury failed to convict defendant thereunder. State v. Whitaker (Mo.), 312 S.W.2d 34.

(1966) Indictment cannot be amended by the court or the prosecuting attorney, but only by the grand jury which has returned it. State v. Holbert (A.), 399 S.W.2d 142.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: State v. Starks, 419 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Starks, 419 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. 1967). · cites it 36× “02 as supplanting Section 545.300, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., it in effect reads rule 24.”
State v. Brown, 406 S.W.3d 460 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “08 1 and section 545.300 2 because the amendment charged him with a different offense and his rights were thereby substantially prejudiced.”
State v. Mattic, 84 S.W.3d 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “08 and § 545.300, and violated his rights to due process of law, to prepare a defense, and to a fair trial, because the superseding indictment charged an additional rape count that had not been previously charged and, in turn, caused him to receive an additional conviction and…”
State v. Simpson, 846 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 8× “08 and § 545.300, RSMo 1986, nullifies the proceedings upon the amended information.”
State v. Tyler, 196 S.W.3d 638 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Section 545.300. 6 The “Amended Information” charging Tyler as a prior and persistent offender was timely filed at least one week before trial.”
State v. Green, 305 S.W.2d 863 (Mo. 1957). · cites it 6× “Counsel for defendant contended in the trial court and argues here that the court was without “lawful authority” to permit the state to substitute an information for the indictment, because there had been no ruling holding the indictment insufficient under section 545.300; and…”
State v. Love, 88 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “3d at 268-69 ; see also § 545.300, RSMo (1994); Rule 23.11. In response to Appellant’s motion to dismiss indictment, the State was ultimately granted leave to file its third amended information.”
State v. McKeehan, 894 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “See also § 545.300, RSMo 1986. The rule has been consistently interpreted as prohibiting an amendment to an information if the effect is to charge an offense different from the one originally charged.”
State v. Greathouse, 789 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “" See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 545.300 (1986). A judgment rendered on an amended information charging a different offense is a nullity because the impermissible amendment rises to a denial of due process of law.”
State v. Berry, 916 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “08 and § 545.300, RSMo 1986, nullifies the proceedings upon the amended information.”
State v. Wilkerson, 796 S.W.2d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “08; § 545.300; State v. Gladies, 456 S.W.2d 23, 25 [4] (Mo.”
Percy E. Cooksey, III v. Paul K. Delo, 94 F.3d 1214 (8th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “Cooksey did not make any further objection to the information nor did he appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion to strike the information. Under Missouri law, “an information charging the same offense charged in [a defective] indictment may be substituted therefor at any…”
Show all 49 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.