541.191. State has jurisdiction over offenses if element of offense or result occurs in state — body of homicide victim found in state, presumption death occurred in state. — 1. This state has jurisdiction over an offense that a person commits by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which such person is legally accountable if:
(1) Conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs within this state; or
(2) The conduct outside this state constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense within this state and an act in furtherance of the attempt or conspiracy occurs within this state; or
(3) The conduct within this state constitutes an attempt, solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation to commit or establishes criminal accountability for the commission of an offense in another jurisdiction that is also an offense under the law of this state; or
(4) The offense consists of an omission to perform a duty imposed by the law of this state regardless of the location of the defendant at the time of the offense; and
(5) The offense is a violation of a statute of this state that prohibits conduct outside the state.
2. When the offense involves a homicide, either the death of the victim or the bodily impact causing death constitutes a result within the meaning of subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section. If the body of a homicide victim is found in this state it is presumed that the result occurred in this state.
3. This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1988–2017 · leading case:
Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872 (Mo. 1992).
Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872 (Mo. 1992).
· cites it 3× “It is relevant to note that in 1987 the legislature enacted § 541.191, RSMo Supp.1992 providing Missouri with jurisdiction over an offense if conduct constituting any element of the offense occurs within this state.”
State v. Starkey, 380 S.W.3d 636 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Appellant claims this violated his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime was committed, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 18(a) of the Missouri…”
State v. Barnes, 942 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Section 541.191, RSMo 1994, provides that Missouri has jurisdiction over an offense “if conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs within Missouri.”
State v. Williams, 455 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “See section 541.191. 3 Rather, De *6 fendant’s contention takes the form of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, in that Defendant argues that the state “failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes occurred in Missouri[.”
Michael M. Pennell v. State of Missouri, 467 S.W.3d 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Section 541.191 provides that: This state has jurisdiction over an offense that a person commits by his own conduct .”
State v. Drinkard, 750 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “A common-law case often cited and often taken to state the principle which determined the proper venue of a prosecution for conspiracy at common law is The King v.”
State v. Johnson, 782 S.W.2d 827 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “In support of its position, the State argues that in this case Johnson’s conduct provides the requisite for jurisdiction in this State pursuant to § 541.191, RSMo Cum.Supp.1989. In pertinent part the statute provides that this state has jurisdiction over an offense that a person…”
State v. Hicks, 526 S.W.3d 273 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to section 541.191, Missouri courts have jurisdiction to enforce a criminal law if any element of the crime occurs within the state.”
State v. Johnson, 2002 UT App 431, 79 P.3d 419.
“1990) (citing Mo.Rev.Stat. § 541.191(1) (Supp. 1989)). .”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 541.191(1): 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 782 S.W.2d 827 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
“In support of its position, the State argues that in this case Johnson’s conduct provides the requisite for jurisdiction in this State pursuant to § 541.191, RSMo Cum.Supp.1989. In pertinent part the statute provides that this state has jurisdiction over an offense that a person…”
State v. Johnson, 2002 UT App 431, 79 P.3d 419.
“1990) (citing Mo.Rev.Stat. § 541.191(1) (Supp. 1989)). .”
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.