562.041. Responsibility for the conduct of another. — 1. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when:
(1) The statute defining the offense makes him or her so responsible; or
(2) Either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he or she aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.
2. However, a person is not so responsible if:
(1) He or she is the victim of the offense committed or attempted;
(2) The offense is so defined that his or her conduct was necessarily incident to the commission or attempt to commit the offense. If his or her conduct constitutes a related but separate offense, he or she is criminally responsible for that offense but not for the conduct or offense committed or attempted by the other person;
(3) Before the commission of the offense such person abandons his or her purpose and gives timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense.
3. The defense provided by subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section is an affirmative defense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
106
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case:
State v. White, 622 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. 1981).
State v. White, 622 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. 1981).
· cites it 26× “12 (derived from § 562.041, RSMo 1978) combined with MAI-CR2d 15.”
State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 16× “The doctrine of accomplice liability set forth in section 562.041 comprehends any of a wide variety of actions intended to assist another in criminal conduct.”
State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. 1996).
· cites it 9× “Prior to the enactment of section 562.041, Missouri’s accomplice liability statutes abrogated the significance of the common law distinction between parties to a felony.”
State v. Newlon, 627 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. 1982).
· cites it 6× “[4] These instructions also virtually parallel current accessory liability statutes, § 562.041, RSMo 1978. [5] Review can be had only under the plain error rule because of appellant's want of objection to any of the contested remarks.”
State v. O'DELL, 684 S.W.2d 453 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 8× “Section 562.041 in part provides: 1. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when .”
State of Missouri v. Maurice Parnell Webber, 504 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Legal Analysis Accomplice Liability Necessarily Incident Exception The first, four points involve the necessarily incident exception to accomplice liability under section 562.041. Mr. Webber argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of three counts of forcible…”
State v. Presley, 694 S.W.2d 867 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 7× “The decisive sections of the Criminal Code are § 562.041 and § 562.046. In part § 562.041 provides: 1.”
State v. Brooks, 158 S.W.3d 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “The jury was instructed on the responsibility Defendant would have for the *848 conduct of another under Section 562.041. 1 Under this statute, a person is responsible for the conduct of another if, either before or during the commission of an offense and with the purpose of…”
State v. Betts, 646 S.W.2d 94 (Mo. 1983).
· cites it 4× “It is clear under § 562.041, RSMo 1978, and we so hold, that the defense of abandonment may be successfully raised on the basis that the defendant may abandon the offense before another perfects it.”
Booker v. State, 552 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Booker was "acting with" his codefendants and utilized language from section 562.041 for accomplice liability.”
State v. Booyer, 87 S.W.3d 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “These actions betray Appellant’s encouragement of the assault of Wisse through his association with the perpetrators prior to and during the assault, his acting as a “show of force” in the commission of the crime, his active search for Wisse after Wisse attempted to elude…”
State v. Holmquest, 243 S.W.3d 444 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Sufficiency of the Evidence Holmquest’s first point argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she “aided or assisted” the other perpetrators in executing the criminal enterprise as defined by section 562.041. 2 She…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.041(1)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Booyer, 87 S.W.3d 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
“These actions betray Appellant’s encouragement of the assault of Wisse through his association with the perpetrators prior to and during the assault, his acting as a “show of force” in the commission of the crime, his active search for Wisse after Wisse attempted to elude…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.041(2) — 4 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.041(3) — 1 case
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.