Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.036 (2026)
Accountability for conduct
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
562.036. Accountability for conduct. — A person with the required culpable mental state is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his or her own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he or she is criminally responsible, or both.
--------
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)
Effective 1-01-17
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: State v. White, 622 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. 1981).
State v. White, 622 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. 1981). “10 [1] (derived from § 562.036, RSMo 1978): 1. A person is guilty of an offense if it was committed by conduct for which he is criminally responsible, whether that conduct was his own or that of another person or both his own conduct and that of another.”
State v. Winsor, 110 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). “Appellant asserts that under section 562.036, RSMo 2000, he is not guilty of the offense for which he was charged because he lacked the required culpable mental state.”
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007). “§ 97-1-3 (2006); Mo.Rev. Stat. §§ 562.036, 562.041(1) (2000); Mont.”
State v. Holland, 653 S.W.2d 670 (Mo. 1983). “The law stated in this paragraph is derived from Section 562.036 which renders a defendant responsible for an offense committed by another person (assault in the example given above) only if the defendant had the "required culpable mental state" for the offense (the assault in…”
State v. Logan, 645 S.W.2d 60 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “He contests only his liability for the automobile robbery, contending that §§ 562.036 and 562.041, of the 1979 Criminal Code do not authorize a defendant to be convicted of an offense committed by other persons when he did not initially contemplate that offense.”
State v. Quisenberry, 639 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. 1982). “Sections 562.036 and 562.041 provide that unless a defendant has the requisite culpable mental state at the time he aids another in the commission of an offense, he cannot be convicted as an accomplice to the offense.”
State v. Roberts, 709 S.W.2d 857 (Mo. 1986). “" Sections 565.012.2(8), (9) RSMo 1978 (repealed effective 10-1-84).”
State v. Mangum, 390 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). “Section 562.036 and Section 562.041 deal with accountability for conduct and responsibility for the conduct of another: Section 562.”
State v. Smith, 229 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). “In contending as he does, the appellant argues that §§ 562.036 and 562.041, governing accomplice liability, required the State, in order to convict him of robbery in the first degree on a theory of accomplice liability, to not only establish that he “purposefully promoted” the…”
State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). “Second, Gal-breath does not fully consider the effect of section 562.036, which provides that “[a] person with the required culpable mental state is guilty of an offense if it is commit *58 ted by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is criminally…”
State v. Booyer, 87 S.W.3d 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). “Section 562.036 provides that “[a] person with the required culpable mental state is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is criminally responsible, or both.”
State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. 1996). “” § 562.036, RSMo 1994. A defendant may be held criminally responsible for the conduct of another when: [ejither before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other…”
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.