Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.026 (2026)

Culpable mental state, when not required

✓ current as of May 2026

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

562.026. Culpable mental state, when not required. — A culpable mental state is not required:

(1) If the offense is an infraction and no culpable mental state is prescribed by the statute defining the offense; or

(2) If the offense is a felony or misdemeanor and no culpable mental state is prescribed by the statute defining the offense, and imputation of a culpable mental state to the offense is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the statute defining the offense or may lead to an absurd or unjust result.

--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1997 S.B. 89)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: State v. Green, 629 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Green, 629 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 12× “2, which is part of the criminal code, provides: [E]xcept as provided in section 562.026 if the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is established if a person acts purposely or…”

State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 3× “This conclusion is consistent with section 562.026(2), RSMo Supp.1999, which provides that no culpable mental state is to be imputed to an offense if imputation is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the statute defining the offense or may lead to an absurd or unjust result.”

State v. Dennis, 153 S.W.3d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “021 provides: Except as provided in section 562.026 if the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly or recklessly, but criminal…”

State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997). · cites it 4× “1 says in full: Except as provided in section 562.026, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acts with a culpable mental state, that is, unless he acts purposely or knowingly or recklessly or with criminal negligence, as the statute defining the offense may require with…”

State v. Beishir, 646 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. 1983). · cites it 7× “2 provides that, except as provided in § 562.026, “if the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly or recklessly, but criminal…”

State v. Mannon, 637 S.W.2d 674 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 4× “2 provides: Except as provided in section 562.026 if the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly or recklessly, but criminal…”

Turner v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 349 S.W.3d 434 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Likewise, Morales is distinguishable from this cáse because, absent an exception as permitted by section 562.026 and not shown here, “it is well-settled that, where a specific mental state is not prescribed in a statute, ‘a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is…”

State v. Keeler, 856 S.W.2d 928 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Except as provided in section 562.026, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acts with a culpable mental state, that is, unless he acts purposely or knowingly or recklessly or with criminal negligence, as the statute defining the offense may require with respect to the…”

State v. Boggs, 634 S.W.2d 447 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 2× “051 in § 562.026, which dispenses with the requirement of a culpable mental state in subsection 2, when the statute defining the offense clearly indicates a purpose to dispense with the requirement of any culpable mental state as to a specific element of the offense.”

State v. Jones, 865 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 4× “2, in effect at the time of the offense, stated: “Except as provided in section 562.026 if the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is established if a person acts purposely or…”

State v. Briscoe, 847 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. 1993). · cites it 3× “2, RSMo 1986, which provides: Except as provided in section 562.026 4 if the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly or recklessly,…”

State v. Walton, 166 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “This conclusion is consistent with section 562.026(2), RSMo Supp.1999, which provides that no culpable mental state is to be imputed to an offense if imputation is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the statute defining the offense or may lead to an absurd or unjust result.”

Show all 43 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.026(2) — 9 cases

State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. 2005). “This conclusion is consistent with section 562.026(2), RSMo Supp.1999, which provides that no culpable mental state is to be imputed to an offense if imputation is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the statute defining the offense or may lead to an absurd or unjust result.”

State v. Walton, 166 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). “This conclusion is consistent with section 562.026(2), RSMo Supp.1999, which provides that no culpable mental state is to be imputed to an offense if imputation is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the statute defining the offense or may lead to an absurd or unjust result.”

State v. Gonzales, 253 S.W.3d 86 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

State v. Jones, 865 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. 1993). “2, in effect at the time of the offense, stated: “Except as provided in section 562.026 if the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nonetheless required and is established if a person acts purposely or…”

State v. Rowe, 838 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

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.