Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.036 (2026)

Time limitations

✓ current as of May 2026

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

556.036. Time limitations. — 1. A prosecution for murder, rape in the first degree, forcible rape, attempted rape in the first degree, attempted forcible rape, sodomy in the first degree, forcible sodomy, attempted sodomy in the first degree, attempted forcible sodomy, or any class A felony may be commenced at any time.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions for other offenses must be commenced within the following periods of limitation:

(1) For any felony, three years, except as provided in subdivision (4) of this subsection;

(2) For any misdemeanor, one year;

(3) For any infraction, six months;

(4) For any violation of section 569.040, when classified as a class B felony, or any violation of section 569.050 or 569.055, five years.

3. If the period prescribed in subsection 2 of this section has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for:

(1) Any offense a material element of which is either fraud or a breach of fiduciary obligation within one year after discovery of the offense by an aggrieved party or by a person who has a legal duty to represent an aggrieved party and who is himself or herself not a party to the offense, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation by more than three years. As used in this subdivision, the term "person who has a legal duty to represent an aggrieved party" shall mean the attorney general or the prosecuting or circuit attorney having jurisdiction pursuant to section 407.553, for purposes of offenses committed pursuant to sections 407.511 to 407.556; and

(2) Any offense based upon misconduct in office by a public officer or employee at any time when the person is in public office or employment or within two years thereafter, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation by more than three years; and

(3) Any offense based upon an intentional and willful fraudulent claim of child support arrearage to a public servant in the performance of his or her duties within one year after discovery of the offense, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation by more than three years.

4. An offense is committed either when every element occurs, or, if a legislative purpose to prohibit a continuing course of conduct plainly appears, at the time when the course of conduct or the person's complicity therein is terminated. Time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed.

5. A prosecution is commenced for a misdemeanor or infraction when the information is filed and for a felony when the complaint or indictment is filed.

6. The period of limitation does not run:

(1) During any time when the accused is absent from the state, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than three years;

(2) During any time when the accused is concealing himself or herself from justice either within or without this state;

(3) During any time when a prosecution against the accused for the offense is pending in this state;

(4) During any time when the accused is found to lack mental fitness to proceed pursuant to section 552.020; or

(5) During any period of time after which a DNA profile is developed from evidence collected in relation to the commission of a crime and included in a published laboratory report until the date upon which the accused is identified by name based upon a match between that DNA evidence profile and the known DNA profile of the accused. For purposes of this section, the term "DNA profile" means the collective results of the DNA analysis of an evidence sample.

--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1986 S.B. 685, A.L. 1997 S.B. 56, A.L. 1999 H.B. 487, A.L. 2002 H.B. 1037, et al. merged with S.B. 650, A.L. 2005 H.B. 353, A.L. 2006 H.B. 1857, A.L. 2009 H.B. 62, A.L. 2013 H.B. 215, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491, A.L. 2018 S.B. 819)

(1987) Subsection 2 of this section does not apply and defendant was entitled to have jury determine punishment rather than judge where defendant was charged with felony and being a prior offender and jury returned verdict on lesser included charge that was misdemeanor. State v. Meeks, 734 S.W.2d 282 (Mo.App.W.D.).

(2012) Tolling of statute of limitations upon filing of a felony complaint does not conflict with Article I, Section 17 provision prohibiting felony prosecutions otherwise than by indictment or information. State v. Mixon, 391 S.W.3d 881 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 47 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Hyman, 37 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Hyman, 37 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “Criminal prosecution of felonies can be subject to no time limit, a three-year limit, or a ten-year limit. The general statute of limitations sets no time limit for prosecuting murder or any class A felony, but limits prosecuting any other felony to three years.”

Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 3× “See section 556.036, RSMo Supp.2009: "[PJrosecutions for other offenses must be commenced within the following periods of limitation: (1) For any felony, three years .”

State v. Donelson, 343 S.W.3d 729 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 17× “We reverse the trial court’s judgment with regard to the two counts of armed criminal action on the ground that those counts were barred by the statute of limitations, Section 556.036 RSMo Cum.Supp. 2009, and vacate the corresponding sentences of fifty years of imprisonment on…”

Branson v. State, 145 S.W.3d 57 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 17× “Section 556.036, RSMo 1986 states, in pertinent part: 1.”

State v. Naasz, 142 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “Section 556.036, RSMo Cum.Supp. (2002), states in pertinent part: 1.”

State v. Bullington, 680 S.W.2d 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “He relies on § 556.036, RSMo 1978 [1] as the basis for the period of limitations.”

Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “17-A, § 8(3)(B) (West 2003) (statute of limitations is tolled for a subsequent indictment charging the "same crime based on the same conduct" as the original indictment); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 556.036(6)(3) (2003); Neb.”

State v. Maples, 306 S.W.3d 153 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “] § 556.036, RSMo 1986. In 1994, the General Assembly amended sections 566.”

State v. Corley, 251 S.W.3d 416 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “Prior to trial, Defendant had filed a motion to dismiss the information based on an allegation that the “case” was barred by section 556.036 (the applicable three year statute of limitation).”

State v. Graham, 149 S.W.3d 465 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “The language of the 1973 Proposed Code was adopted by section 556.036 RSMo 1978. According to section 557.”

Rickey E. Ferdinand v. State of Missouri, 480 S.W.3d 330 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “037 rather than Section 556.036 (as Ferdinand asserted). As Section 556.”

State v. Rotter, 958 S.W.2d 59 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “Under section 556.036 the period of limitations is tolled “[d]uring any time when the prosecution against the accused for the offense is pending in this state.”

Show all 47 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.036(2) — 1 case

State v. Boshers, 848 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.036(2)(2) — 1 case

State v. Thompson, 810 S.W.2d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.036(3) — 1 case

State v. White, 838 S.W.2d 140 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.036(5) — 1 case

State v. Thompson, 810 S.W.2d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.036(6)(3) — 1 case

Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “17-A, § 8(3)(B) (West 2003) (statute of limitations is tolled for a subsequent indictment charging the "same crime based on the same conduct" as the original indictment); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 556.036(6)(3) (2003); Neb.”

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.