545.030. 1. No indictment or information shall be deemedinvalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedingsthereon be stayed, arrested or in any manner affected:
(1) By reason of the omission or misstatement of thedefendant's title, occupation, estate or degree, or of the countyor town of his residence; or
(2) By the omission of the words, "with force and arms", orany words with similar import; or
(3) By omitting to charge any offense to have been contraryto a statute or statutes, notwithstanding such offense may havebeen created or the punishment declared by a statute; or
(4) For the omission of the words "as appears by therecord"; nor
(5) For omitting to state the time at which the offense wascommitted, in any case where time is not of the essence of theoffense; nor
(6) For stating the time imperfectly; nor
(7) For stating the offense to have been committed on a daysubsequent to the finding of the indictment or information, or animpossible day, or on a day that never happened; nor
(8) For want of a proper or perfect venue; nor
(9) For want of any venue at all; nor
(10) For want of a statement of the value or price of anymatter or thing, or the amount of damages, injury or spoil in anycase where the value or price, or the amount of damages, injuryor spoil is not of the essence of the offense; nor
(11) For the want of an allegation of the time or place ofany material fact, when the time and place have once been statedin the indictment or information; nor
(12) That dates and numbers are represented by figures; nor
(13) For an omission to allege that the grand jurors wereimpaneled, sworn or charged; nor
(14) For any surplusage or repugnant allegation, when thereis sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and personcharged; nor
(15) For want of the averment of any matter not necessary tobe proved; nor
(16) For any error committed at the instance or in favor ofthe defendant; nor
(17) Because the evidence shows or tends to show him to beguilty of a higher degree of the offense than that of which he isconvicted; nor
(18) For any other defect or imperfection which does nottend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendantupon the merits.
2. Provided, that nothing herein shall be so construed as torender valid any indictment which does not fully inform thedefendant of the offense of which he stands charged.
(1951) Amendment of forgery information, after jury was sworn, to change date of offense from 13th of November to 14th, where check set out in information was dated "11-1449" held not erroneous. State v. Redding, 362 Mo. 39, 239 S.W.2d 494.
(1951) Where information, at beginning, alleged accused committed assault upon himself, but went on to charge that defendant assaulted another, it was not void under this section. State v. Taylor, 362 Mo. 676, 243 S.W.2d 301.
(1952) Where caption of information for driving while intoxicated, correctly set forth defendant's name, and he was referred to in the body of the information only as "the defendant," information, which was otherwise sufficient to charge appellant with the crime for which he was convicted, held valid. State v. Hurley (Mo.), 251 S.W.2d 617.
(1953) It is not necessary to negative all exceptions in the statute in an indictment charging an individual with a sale of nonintoxicating beer to a minor, but such negativing or exceptions does not invalidate the indictment. Such allegations must be regarded as surplusage. State v. Henry (A.), 254 S.W.2d 307.
(1954) Submission of manslaughter in murder case, where evidence did not support issue, was not an error of which defendant could complain. State v. Brotherton (Mo.), 266 S.W.2d 712.
(1955) Information charging that defendant operated automobile in careless, reckless and imprudent manner so as to endanger life, etc., held insufficient as failing to inform defendant of offense of which he was charged. State v. Reynolds (A.), 274 S.W.2d 514.
(1961) Where submissible case was made as to second degree murder, defendant was not entitled to complain that a submissible case was not made as to manslaughter. State v. Chamineak (Mo.), 343 S.W.2d 153.
(1962) Use of word "hereinafter" instead of word "hereinbefore" in instruction "that such shooting and killing were not done in self defense as hereinafter explained you will find him guilty of manslaughter" was mere discrepancy cured by this statute. State v. Gray (Mo.), 360 S.W.2d 642.
(1964) Court did not err in permitting substitution of information for indictment at close of evidence and before submission of case to jury where the only difference was that information stated both the name and alias of person to whom defendant sold marijuana and indictment stated only the alias since defendant had known for over a month the true name of the person named in indictment. State v. Whittington (Mo.), 379 S.W.2d 518.
(1966) Failure to allege a constituent element of an offense affects the substantial rights of the defendant, and such a failure is not cased by the statute of jeofails. State v. Cantrell (Mo.), 403 S.W.2d 647.
(1973) Under statute of jeofails a conviction will not be set aside where an indictment was amended by prosecutor to change the charge returned by a grand jury to a lesser offense included therein. Hayes v. State (A.), 501 S.W.2d 508.
(1974) Held that where name of defendant was set out in style of the indictment he was sufficiently identified. State v. Nelson (Mo.), 514 S.W.2d 581.
(1976) Held that second degree murder is a lesser included offense of felony murder. See also for three judges' opinions to the contrary. State v. Williams (Mo.), 529 S.W.2d 883.
545.030. 1. No indictment or information shall be deemedinvalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedingsthereon be stayed, arrested or in any manner affected:
(1) By reason of the omission or misstatement of thedefendant's title, occupation, estate or degree, or of the countyor town of his residence; or
(2) By the omission of the words, "with force and arms", orany words with similar import; or
(3) By omitting to charge any offense to have been contraryto a statute or statutes, notwithstanding such offense may havebeen created or the punishment declared by a statute; or
(4) For the omission of the words "as appears by therecord"; nor
(5) For omitting to state the time at which the offense wascommitted, in any case where time is not of the essence of theoffense; nor
(6) For stating the time imperfectly; nor
(7) For stating the offense to have been committed on a daysubsequent to the finding of the indictment or information, or animpossible day, or on a day that never happened; nor
(8) For want of a proper or perfect venue; nor
(9) For want of any venue at all; nor
(10) For want of a statement of the value or price of anymatter or thing, or the amount of damages, injury or spoil in anycase where the value or price, or the amount of damages, injuryor spoil is not of the essence of the offense; nor
(11) For the want of an allegation of the time or place ofany material fact, when the time and place have once been statedin the indictment or information; nor
(12) That dates and numbers are represented by figures; nor
(13) For an omission to allege that the grand jurors wereimpaneled, sworn or charged; nor
(14) For any surplusage or repugnant allegation, when thereis sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and personcharged; nor
(15) For want of the averment of any matter not necessary tobe proved; nor
(16) For any error committed at the instance or in favor ofthe defendant; nor
(17) Because the evidence shows or tends to show him to beguilty of a higher degree of the offense than that of which he isconvicted; nor
(18) For any other defect or imperfection which does nottend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendantupon the merits.
2. Provided, that nothing herein shall be so construed as torender valid any indictment which does not fully inform thedefendant of the offense of which he stands charged.
(1951) Amendment of forgery information, after jury was sworn, to change date of offense from 13th of November to 14th, where check set out in information was dated "11-1449" held not erroneous. State v. Redding, 362 Mo. 39, 239 S.W.2d 494.
(1951) Where information, at beginning, alleged accused committed assault upon himself, but went on to charge that defendant assaulted another, it was not void under this section. State v. Taylor, 362 Mo. 676, 243 S.W.2d 301.
(1952) Where caption of information for driving while intoxicated, correctly set forth defendant's name, and he was referred to in the body of the information only as "the defendant," information, which was otherwise sufficient to charge appellant with the crime for which he was convicted, held valid. State v. Hurley (Mo.), 251 S.W.2d 617.
(1953) It is not necessary to negative all exceptions in the statute in an indictment charging an individual with a sale of nonintoxicating beer to a minor, but such negativing or exceptions does not invalidate the indictment. Such allegations must be regarded as surplusage. State v. Henry (A.), 254 S.W.2d 307.
(1954) Submission of manslaughter in murder case, where evidence did not support issue, was not an error of which defendant could complain. State v. Brotherton (Mo.), 266 S.W.2d 712.
(1955) Information charging that defendant operated automobile in careless, reckless and imprudent manner so as to endanger life, etc., held insufficient as failing to inform defendant of offense of which he was charged. State v. Reynolds (A.), 274 S.W.2d 514.
(1961) Where submissible case was made as to second degree murder, defendant was not entitled to complain that a submissible case was not made as to manslaughter. State v. Chamineak (Mo.), 343 S.W.2d 153.
(1962) Use of word "hereinafter" instead of word "hereinbefore" in instruction "that such shooting and killing were not done in self defense as hereinafter explained you will find him guilty of manslaughter" was mere discrepancy cured by this statute. State v. Gray (Mo.), 360 S.W.2d 642.
(1964) Court did not err in permitting substitution of information for indictment at close of evidence and before submission of case to jury where the only difference was that information stated both the name and alias of person to whom defendant sold marijuana and indictment stated only the alias since defendant had known for over a month the true name of the person named in indictment. State v. Whittington (Mo.), 379 S.W.2d 518.
(1966) Failure to allege a constituent element of an offense affects the substantial rights of the defendant, and such a failure is not cased by the statute of jeofails. State v. Cantrell (Mo.), 403 S.W.2d 647.
(1973) Under statute of jeofails a conviction will not be set aside where an indictment was amended by prosecutor to change the charge returned by a grand jury to a lesser offense included therein. Hayes v. State (A.), 501 S.W.2d 508.
(1974) Held that where name of defendant was set out in style of the indictment he was sufficiently identified. State v. Nelson (Mo.), 514 S.W.2d 581.
(1976) Held that second degree murder is a lesser included offense of felony murder. See also for three judges' opinions to the contrary. State v. Williams (Mo.), 529 S.W.2d 883.
545.030. 1. No indictment or information shall be deemedinvalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedingsthereon be stayed, arrested or in any manner affected:
(1) By reason of the omission or misstatement of thedefendant's title, occupation, estate or degree, or of the countyor town of his residence; or
(2) By the omission of the words, "with force and arms", orany words with similar import; or
(3) By omitting to charge any offense to have been contraryto a statute or statutes, notwithstanding such offense may havebeen created or the punishment declared by a statute; or
(4) For the omission of the words "as appears by therecord"; nor
(5) For omitting to state the time at which the offense wascommitted, in any case where time is not of the essence of theoffense; nor
(6) For stating the time imperfectly; nor
(7) For stating the offense to have been committed on a daysubsequent to the finding of the indictment or information, or animpossible day, or on a day that never happened; nor
(8) For want of a proper or perfect venue; nor
(9) For want of any venue at all; nor
(10) For want of a statement of the value or price of anymatter or thing, or the amount of damages, injury or spoil in anycase where the value or price, or the amount of damages, injuryor spoil is not of the essence of the offense; nor
(11) For the want of an allegation of the time or place ofany material fact, when the time and place have once been statedin the indictment or information; nor
(12) That dates and numbers are represented by figures; nor
(13) For an omission to allege that the grand jurors wereimpaneled, sworn or charged; nor
(14) For any surplusage or repugnant allegation, when thereis sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and personcharged; nor
(15) For want of the averment of any matter not necessary tobe proved; nor
(16) For any error committed at the instance or in favor ofthe defendant; nor
(17) Because the evidence shows or tends to show him to beguilty of a higher degree of the offense than that of which he isconvicted; nor
(18) For any other defect or imperfection which does nottend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendantupon the merits.
2. Provided, that nothing herein shall be so construed as torender valid any indictment which does not fully inform thedefendant of the offense of which he stands charged.
(1951) Amendment of forgery information, after jury was sworn, to change date of offense from 13th of November to 14th, where check set out in information was dated "11-1449" held not erroneous. State v. Redding, 362 Mo. 39, 239 S.W.2d 494.
(1951) Where information, at beginning, alleged accused committed assault upon himself, but went on to charge that defendant assaulted another, it was not void under this section. State v. Taylor, 362 Mo. 676, 243 S.W.2d 301.
(1952) Where caption of information for driving while intoxicated, correctly set forth defendant's name, and he was referred to in the body of the information only as "the defendant," information, which was otherwise sufficient to charge appellant with the crime for which he was convicted, held valid. State v. Hurley (Mo.), 251 S.W.2d 617.
(1953) It is not necessary to negative all exceptions in the statute in an indictment charging an individual with a sale of nonintoxicating beer to a minor, but such negativing or exceptions does not invalidate the indictment. Such allegations must be regarded as surplusage. State v. Henry (A.), 254 S.W.2d 307.
(1954) Submission of manslaughter in murder case, where evidence did not support issue, was not an error of which defendant could complain. State v. Brotherton (Mo.), 266 S.W.2d 712.
(1955) Information charging that defendant operated automobile in careless, reckless and imprudent manner so as to endanger life, etc., held insufficient as failing to inform defendant of offense of which he was charged. State v. Reynolds (A.), 274 S.W.2d 514.
(1961) Where submissible case was made as to second degree murder, defendant was not entitled to complain that a submissible case was not made as to manslaughter. State v. Chamineak (Mo.), 343 S.W.2d 153.
(1962) Use of word "hereinafter" instead of word "hereinbefore" in instruction "that such shooting and killing were not done in self defense as hereinafter explained you will find him guilty of manslaughter" was mere discrepancy cured by this statute. State v. Gray (Mo.), 360 S.W.2d 642.
(1964) Court did not err in permitting substitution of information for indictment at close of evidence and before submission of case to jury where the only difference was that information stated both the name and alias of person to whom defendant sold marijuana and indictment stated only the alias since defendant had known for over a month the true name of the person named in indictment. State v. Whittington (Mo.), 379 S.W.2d 518.
(1966) Failure to allege a constituent element of an offense affects the substantial rights of the defendant, and such a failure is not cased by the statute of jeofails. State v. Cantrell (Mo.), 403 S.W.2d 647.
(1973) Under statute of jeofails a conviction will not be set aside where an indictment was amended by prosecutor to change the charge returned by a grand jury to a lesser offense included therein. Hayes v. State (A.), 501 S.W.2d 508.
(1974) Held that where name of defendant was set out in style of the indictment he was sufficiently identified. State v. Nelson (Mo.), 514 S.W.2d 581.
(1976) Held that second degree murder is a lesser included offense of felony murder. See also for three judges' opinions to the contrary. State v. Williams (Mo.), 529 S.W.2d 883.
