546.080. Variance between charge and proof. — Whenever on the trial of any felony or misdemeanor, there shall appear to be any variance between the statement in the indictment or information and the evidence offered in proof thereof, in the Christian name or surname, or both the Christian name and surname, or other description whatsoever, or any person whomsoever therein named or described, or in the name or description of any matter or thing whatsoever therein named or described, or in the ownership of any property named or described therein, such variance shall not be deemed grounds for an acquittal of the defendant, unless the court before which the trial shall be had shall find that such variance is material to the merits of the case and prejudicial to the defense of the defendant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2023 · leading case:
State v. Davis, 482 S.W.2d 486 (Mo. 1972).
State v. Davis, 482 S.W.2d 486 (Mo. 1972).
· cites it 4× “, § 546.080, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The principal instruction did call for a finding of taking from the person of Jessie, rather than Debra, as charged in the information.”
State v. Wolfe, 103 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Apparently, in response to Buckner and its progeny, the legislature in 1879 adopted section 1891, the predecessor to today’s section 546.080, RSMo. In State v. Hope, 100 Mo.”
State v. Dean, 382 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “§ 546.080 RSMo (2000); State v. Glass, 136 S.”
State v. Burns, 322 S.W.2d 736 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 2× “The information charged that the groceries “were the property of Taff Skaggs”; and defendant now -argues that this was not proven.”
State v. Wright, 476 S.W.2d 581 (Mo. 1972).
· cites it 2× “See also § 546.080, RSMo 1969, V.A. M.S.”
State v. Trimble, 654 S.W.2d 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
“§ 546.080 ... and denied defendant due process of law as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of Missouri State Constitution, and his right to be free from double jeopardy, as guaranteed by Fifth Amendment of United States…”
State v. Dobson, 303 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1957).
· cites it 3× “, provides in part: “Whenever on the trial of any felony or misdemeanor, there shall appear to be any variance between the statement in the indictment or information and the evidence offered in proof thereof, in the Christian name or surname, or both the Christian name and…”
State v. Kammerich, 550 S.W.2d 931 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “04(d), and the defendant’s reliance on § 546.080, RSMo 1969, is misplaced. As to matters covered by the statute, the statute permits a discretionary ruling of the court with respect to whether or not the variance is material.”
State v. Seaman, 625 S.W.2d 950 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Section 546.080 provides in pertinent part that: Whenever on the trial of any felony or misdemeanor, there shall appear to be any variance between the statement in the indictment or information and the evidence offered in proof thereof, .”
State v. Price, 238 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. 1951).
· cites it 2× “Section 546.080, Mo. R. S. 1949, provides that no variance between the statement of the information and the evidence in the name of any person or description of anything or matter or in the ownership of any property shall be deemed material unless the trial court shall find that…”
Davis v. Hannegan (In re Hannegan), 155 B.R. 209 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The parties agree that such trusts are recognized by Missouri law but the Court notes that the spendthrift trust created by the Will meets the requirements of Missouri Revised Code section 546.080 and so qualifies as a spendthrift trust under Missouri law.”
State v. Smith, 261 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. 1953).
“The defendant's motion for new trial limits the attack on instruction 3 to these complaints: (a) that it improperly states the law, (b) that it comments upon the evidence, (c) that it urges defendant's conviction by leading the jury to believe that the court felt that the…”
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.