Effective 28 Aug 1939

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.

(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.