Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 562
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.046 (2026)

Defense precluded

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  562.046.  Defense precluded. — It is no defense to any prosecution for an offense in which the criminal responsibility of the defendant is based upon the conduct of another that

  (1)  Such other person has been acquitted or has not been convicted or has been convicted of some other offense or degree of offense or lacked criminal capacity or was unaware of the defendant's criminal purpose or is immune from prosecution or is not amenable to justice; or

  (2)  The defendant does not belong to that class of persons who was legally capable of committing the offense in an individual capacity.

­­--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-01-79

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: State of Missouri v. Luis Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Missouri v. Luis Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 4× “Appellant’s argument that Maldonado’s conviction was vacated is immaterial because it does not take into account section 562.046(1), which states: It is no defense to any prosecution for an offense -in which the criminal responsibility of the defendant is based upon the conduct…”
State v. Quisenberry, 639 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 6× “Section 562.046, moreover, enumerates certain defenses an accomplice may not raise.”
State v. Presley, 694 S.W.2d 867 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “041 and § 562.046. In part § 562.041 provides: 1.”
Bass v. State, 950 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “Section 562.046 specifically states that it is no defense to a conviction under Section 562.”
Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980). “911 (1935)); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.046 (1978); Neb. Rev.”
State v. Durham, 299 S.W.3d 316 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “1(2) and the Comment are read in connection with section 562.046(1), it is clear that “causing an innocent person tp commit the proscribed conduct renders the one who causes the conduct liable.”
State v. Kaiser, 139 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Section 562.046(2). Thus, whether Kaiser was a mandated reporter or not, he could properly be convicted as an accessory to Via in her failure to report elderly abuse.”
State v. Petry, 273 S.E.2d 346 (W. Va. 1980). “143, 144-145 (1926)); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 562.046 (1978); Mont.Codes Ann.”
State v. Silvers, 735 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “See § 562.046, RSMo 1986. He further acknowledges that a person can be criminally responsible for the conduct of another when he aids in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.”
State v. Rainey, 545 S.W.3d 916 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 562.046(1). Rainey's motion for a new trial was indirectly overruled by operation of law under Rule 29.”
State v. Gannaway, 649 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “Also, § 562.046(1) acknowledges that participants to an offense do not need to possess the same mental state by provid *240 ing, inter alia, that it is no defense to a “prosecution for an offense in which the criminal responsibility of the defendant is based upon the conduct of…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.046(1) — 5 cases
State of Missouri v. Luis Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. 2016). “Appellant’s argument that Maldonado’s conviction was vacated is immaterial because it does not take into account section 562.046(1), which states: It is no defense to any prosecution for an offense -in which the criminal responsibility of the defendant is based upon the conduct…”
State v. Presley, 694 S.W.2d 867 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). “041 and § 562.046. In part § 562.041 provides: 1.”
State v. Durham, 299 S.W.3d 316 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). “1(2) and the Comment are read in connection with section 562.046(1), it is clear that “causing an innocent person tp commit the proscribed conduct renders the one who causes the conduct liable.”
State v. Rainey, 545 S.W.3d 916 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 562.046(1). Rainey's motion for a new trial was indirectly overruled by operation of law under Rule 29.”
State v. Gannaway, 649 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “Also, § 562.046(1) acknowledges that participants to an offense do not need to possess the same mental state by provid *240 ing, inter alia, that it is no defense to a “prosecution for an offense in which the criminal responsibility of the defendant is based upon the conduct of…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.046(2) — 2 cases
State v. Kaiser, 139 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “Section 562.046(2). Thus, whether Kaiser was a mandated reporter or not, he could properly be convicted as an accessory to Via in her failure to report elderly abuse.”
Bass v. State, 950 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 562.046 specifically states that it is no defense to a conviction under Section 562.”
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.