Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 546.380 (2026)

Court not to charge, but may instruct jury

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

546.380. Court not to charge, but may instruct jury. — The court shall not, on the trial of the issue in any criminal case, sum up or comment upon the evidence, or charge the jury as to matter of fact, unless requested to so do by the prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his counsel; but the court may instruct the jury in writing on any point of law arising in the cause.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 4083)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3694; 1919 § 4038; 1909 § 5244

(1954) Where judge, after jury began deliberations, pointed out expense of trial and desirability of reaching verdict and told them they should respect opinions of others and attempt to arrive at a verdict while adhering to instructions, there was no error. State v. Roberts (Mo.), 272 S.W.2d 190.

(1956) An inquiry as to how a jury stands numerically after it has deliberated two hours is not coercive per se but whether it is coercive must be determined on the record of what was said and done at the time. State v. Baker (Mo.), 293 S.W.2d 900.

(1956) Statement by court in ruling objection in presence of jury, to the effect that drunkenness of prosecuting witness constituted no defense in robbery case held not prejudicial error. State v. Swiney (Mo.), 296 S.W.2d 104.

(1957) Remarks of court held not comment on evidence. State v. Moore (Mo.), 303 S.W.2d 60.

(1958) In robbery prosecution where defendant was accused of giving signal to confederates by lighting match and where witnesses testified they did not see cigarette in defendant's hand, comment by judge that as matter of law evidence was that defendant did not have cigarette held unwarranted and erroneous. State v. Fields (Mo.), 314 S.W.2d 723.

(1959) Statement by court on voir dire examination that information charged two prior convictions, although information charged only one, held not prejudicial in case where defendant testified on direct examination that he entered pleas of guilty to other offenses. State v. Rose (Mo.), 325 S.W.2d 485.

(1960) Instruction not requested by defendant, limiting jury's consideration of any other offense participated in by defendant to sole purpose of shedding light upon identification and presence of defendant at the time of shooting of deceased was cautionary instruction for benefit of defendant and not improper. Use of word "alibi" in another instruction was not prejudicial. State v. Griffin (Mo.), 336 S.W.2d 364.

(1964) Statement by court to jury after it had retired and in answer to a question relating to time defendant would serve if given life sentence and whether or not defendant could be paroled constituted prejudicial error. State v. Cornett (Mo.), 381 S.W.2d 878.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: State v. Harrison, 213 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Harrison, 213 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “See also Section 546.380. "A question or comment from a trial judge must not express his or her opinion of evidence in the case[.”

State v. Moore, 303 S.W.2d 60 (Mo. 1957). · cites it 3× “He specifies three instances which he charges are violations of Section 546.380 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. which provides that “The court shall not, on the trial of the issue in any criminal case, sum up or comment upon the evidence, or charge the jury as to matter of fact, * * See…”

State v. Chaney, 349 S.W.2d 238 (Mo. 1961). · cites it 4× “If it does not, then § 546.380 controls and the duty is, or should be, upon the defendant to request an instruction in proper form before he can claim error.”

State v. Jordan, 532 S.W.2d 776 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “Fingerprint evidence such as the ink prints and the lifts are capable only of professional interpretation” (1) violates the principle that the testimony of experts is to be considered like any other testimony and is to receive as much weight as the jury may deem it entitled to…”

State v. Jenkins, 494 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. 1973). · cites it 3× “-09 and Section 546.380, RSMo 1969. The referenced context of this contention shows that defense counsel stated: “Now, I think it’s very significant that at this lineup Officer Thomas Bowe did not state that Melvin Schneider identified the defendant.”

State v. Mitchell, 693 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “On appeal, defendant claimed that the court’s statement was a forbidden comment on the evidence indicating to the jury that it was not to determine the credibility of the witness for itself and hence violative of § 546.380, RSMo 1978 and Rule 27.06. While in a pristine sense…”

State v. Grant, 394 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. 1965). · cites it 2× “20(c), and § 546.380, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. A direction by the court that a verdict must be unanimous -in a criminal case is -ordinarily and more properly given in written form, but an oral direction is not erroneous since it is not a part of the law of the case required to be in…”

State v. Thost, 328 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. 1959). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree and assessing his punishment at five years’ imprisonment in the State penitentiary.”

State v. Tate, 468 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. 1971). · cites it 2× “Appellant quotes § 546.380, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., which prohibits the court from commenting on the evidence, and cites and quotes from State v.”

State v. Beedle, 619 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “Second, any such communication is fraught with the peril of being considered a comment upon the evidence contrary to § 546.380 RSMo 1978 and former Rule 26.09, now Rule 27.”

State v. Everett, 448 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. 1970). · cites it 2× “8 prej-udicially directed attention to the convictions of witnesses Mason and Barnett, singling them out, and commented on the evidence in violation of § 546.380, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. (which provides: “The court shall not, on the trial of the issue in any criminal case, sum up or…”

State v. Fields, 314 S.W.2d 723 (Mo. 1958). · cites it 2× “In fact, by the comments the trial judge unequivocally told counsel, and also the jury, what the evidence was “as a matter of law,” and inferentially what the evidence was not “as a matter of law.”

Show all 18 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.