Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 547.030 (2026)

Motion for new trial

✓ current as of May 2026

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

547.030. Motion for new trial. — The motion for a new trial shall be in writing and must set forth in detail and with particularity, in separate numbered paragraphs, the specific grounds or causes therefor. Such motion shall be filed before judgment and within four days after the return of the verdict; provided, on application of defendant, the court may extend the time for filing such motion for a period of thirty days; provided further, the court shall have no power to make another or further extension of the time for filing said motion.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 4125)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3735; 1919 § 4079; 1909 § 5285

1952) Assignments in motion for new trial that jury verdict was against weight of the evidence and against the law and evidence present nothing for consideration on appeal. State v. Johnson (Mo.), 248 S.W.2d 654; (1952) State v. Politte (Mo.), 249 S.W.2d 366.

(1952) Assignment in motion for new trial "That the court erred in overruling and denying motion to quash search warrant, sheriff's return thereon and to suppress evidence secured thereunder" held not to preserve action of court for review. State v. Tebbe (A.), 249 S.W.2d 172.

(1953) Court could not review refusal of trial court to give instruction converse to state's main instruction where new trial motion assigned only failure to instruct upon all the law of the case. State v. Dennis (Mo.), 242 S.W.2d 534.

(1953) Assignment in motion for new trial that certain instructions "did not properly declare the law of the case" presents nothing for review. State v. Bledsoe, 254 S.W.2d 618.

(1953) Failure to specify error in giving instruction in motion for new trial, prevents consideration thereof on appeal. State v. Boyd (Mo.), 256 S.W.2d 765.

(1953) An assignment that "the verdict of the jury is against the evidence and the law in this case" is insufficient to preserve anything for review. State v. Gaddy (Mo.), 261 S.W.2d 65.

(1954) Objections to instructions on ground they conflicted and commented on evidence will be disregarded when facts on which the objections are made are not stated. State v. Hathaway (Mo.), 269 S.W.2d 57.

(1954) General assignments of error held insufficient to present anything for review. State v. McBrayer (Mo.), 269 S.W.2d 756.

(1954) Allegation in motion for new trial that court erred in giving all of state's instructions preserved nothing for review. State v. Riley (Mo.), 270 S.W.2d 741.

(1955) Motion for new trial filed after the expiration of the time allowed by law for its filing is a nullity. State v. Clark (Mo.), 277 S.W.2d 593.

(1956) Assignment that court erred in "admitting evidence which was obtained by unlawful search and seizure" over objection held to preserve nothing for review where no complaint was made as to the denial of a motion to suppress. State v. Lord (Mo.), 286 S.W.2d 737.

(1958) Where judgment was rendered on May 17, 1957, and motion for new trial was not filed until May 22 and overruled Aug. 16, 1957, notice of appeal filed Aug. 17, 1957, was not timely filed and appellate court had no jurisdiction of appeal. State v. Laurisden (A.), 318 S.W.2d 511.

(1959) Where defendant objected at trial to admission of evidence as hearsay, but in motion for new trial assigned as error the admission of the same evidence only as "highly inflammatory" the alleged error was not preserved for review. State v. Hernandez (Mo.), 325 S.W.2d 494.

(1960) Where motion for new trial assigned only the giving of the principal instruction in narcotics apparatus possession case as error, a subsequent contention that court failed to instruct on the intent with which devices were possessed could not be considered on appeal. State v. Scott (Mo.), 333 S.W.2d 41.

(1960) In appeal from conviction of burglary and larceny where motion for new trial failed to set forth in detail and with particularity the specific grounds therefor the court would not review the assignments of error but would consider sufficiency of information since it was a part of the record and since assignment that "court erred in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict of acquittal at the close of all the evidence" is equivalent of claim of "no substantial evidence to support verdict" court would review sufficiency of evidence. State v. Mallory (Mo.), 336 S.W.2d 383.

(1961) Where court granted defendant thirty days from date of verdict to file motion for new trial and motion was timely filed but petition to amend motion was not filed until seventy-two days after verdict, the amended assignment was not timely filed. State v. Small (Mo.), 344 S.W.2d 49.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 95 cases, 1951–1973 · leading case: State v. Rohman, 261 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1953).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Rohman, 261 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1953). · cites it 9× “Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Supreme Court Rule 27.”

State v. Lord, 286 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. 1956). · cites it 6× “One of the assignments in defendant’s motion for new trial is that “the court erred in admitting evidence which was obtained by unlawful search and seizure, over the objections of defendant.”

State v. Mayberry, 272 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. 1954). · cites it 7× “, Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., to preserve anything for appellate review.”

State v. Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. 1962). · cites it 4× “; Section 547.030), and, first presented in defendant’s brief, it is not preserved for review.”

State v. Eison, 271 S.W.2d 571 (Mo. 1954). · cites it 8× “” Appellant also objects to the state’s recalling appellant’s witness Ivan Dean, and in asking him questions that would tend to impeach this witness. In his motion for a new trial, appellant states that “the court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial…”

State v. Shriver, 275 S.W.2d 304 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 5× “And see Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which was superseded by Supreme Court Rule 27.”

State v. Morris, 248 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. 1952). · cites it 4× “Under section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., the motion for new trial in a criminal case "must set forth in detail and with particularity, in separate numbered paragraphs, the specific grounds or causes therefor.”

State v. Gaddy, 261 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. 1953). · cites it 3× “It has been the mandatory requirement of statute, Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and now of Court rule (Supreme Court Rule *68 27.”

State v. Tompkins, 277 S.W.2d 587 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 3× “See, also, Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. These assignments of error relating to the evidence concerned immaterial or collateral matters which are within the sound discretion of the trial court, even if there had been compliance with rule 27.”

State v. Murray, 280 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 3× “The notice' of appeal filed in this court is sufficient, stating that the appeal is taken from the “Judgment” (which word respondent asserts was omitted); -'this court, by its order of November 8, 1954, permitted the transcript to be filed Out’ of time; • the motion for new…”

State v. O'BRIEN, 252 S.W.2d 357 (Mo. 1952). · cites it 3× “Defendant, in his brief here, contends his motion to suppress all evidence involving the key to the padlock on the garage and all evidence concerning the contents of the garage where the automobile was found should have been sustained on the ground said evidence was obtained by…”

State v. McCormack, 263 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. 1954). · cites it 6× “Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., to preserve anything for appellate review.”

Show all 95 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.