545.890. Defendant imprisoned — discharge if not tried before end of second term. — If any person indicted for any offense, and committed to prison, shall not be brought to trial before the end of the second term of the court having jurisdiction of the offense which shall be held after such indictment found, he shall be entitled to be discharged, so far as relates to the offense for which he was committed, unless the delay shall happen on the application of the prisoner, or shall be occasioned by the want of time to try the cause at such second term.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases, 1952–2012 · leading case:
State v. Morrison, 364 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Morrison, 364 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 22× “Morrison raises three points on appeal: (1) the court erred in failing to dismiss the charges pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act; (2) the court erred in failing to dismiss the charges pursuant to section 545.890 1 (the terms of court statute); and (8) the…”
State v. Hollis, 584 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 6× “Section 545.890 RSMo 1969. The time or number of terms thus specified is, however, extended to three terms in counties in which there shall be more than two regular terms of court, excluding the term in which the indictment was found.”
State v. Murray, 445 S.W.2d 296 (Mo. 1969).
· cites it 7× “Section 545.890, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., reads as follows: “If any person indicted for any offense, and committed to prison, shall not be brought to trial before the end of the second term of the court having jurisdiction of the offense which shall be held after such indictment…”
Lindner v. Peterson, 324 F. Supp. 1261 (W.D. Mo. 1971).
· cites it 12× “” It is apparent from the foregoing that petitioner is contending that his commitment to the Missouri State Hospital in Fulton deprived him of due process of law under Missouri law in that it deprived him of a speedy trial by jury within two terms of court as set *1264 down in…”
State v. Strong, 484 S.W.2d 657 (Mo. 1972).
· cites it 4× “In order to seek the benefit of this statute defendant starts the time running as of November 19, 1969, when he first appeared in magistrate court for what he designates his “arraignment.”
State v. Owsley, 959 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Section 545.890 does not apply if “the delay shall happen on the application of the prisoner.”
State v. Malone, 301 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. 1957).
· cites it 3× “Appellant relies on §§ 545.890, 545.900, 545.910 and 545.920.”
State v. Caffey, 438 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. 1969).
· cites it 3× “, 6 provides for the discharge of *174 any person indicted for any offense, and committed to prison, if he shall not be brought to trial before the end of the second term of the court having jurisdiction of the offense which shall be held after such indictment found, unless the…”
State v. Paxton, 535 S.W.2d 558 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 7× “A timely motion for new trial was filed claiming error on the overruling of defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
State v. Morton, 444 S.W.2d 420 (Mo. 1969).
· cites it 5× “*423 Four other statutes, §§ 545.890 through 545.920 prescribe the standards under which a defendant is entitled to be discharged if he is not brought to trial in the time and manner therein provided.”
State v. Amerison, 399 S.W.2d 53 (Mo. 1966).
· cites it 4× “Appellant contends that he was not brought to trial in a timely manner, and should have been discharged under the provisions of § 545.890 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Appellant was arraigned April *55 13, 1964, and the case was set for trial November 16, 1964, the first date available.”
State v. Haslip, 583 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Section 545.890.” This statute concerns the discharge of a defendant after a specified number of court terms have passed.”
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.