Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.101 (2026)

Sexual abuse, second degree, penalties

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

  566.101.  Sexual abuse, second degree, penalties. — 1.  A person commits the offense of sexual abuse in the second degree if he or she purposely subjects another person to sexual contact without that person's consent.

  2.  The offense of sexual abuse in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor, unless it is an aggravated sexual offense, in which case it is a class E felony.

­­--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1994 S.B. 693, A.L. 2002 S.B. 969, et al., A.L. 2006 H.B. 1698, et al., A.L. 2013 H.B. 215, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

Transferred 2013; formerly 566.090

CROSS REFERENCE:

Child sexual abuse, action for civil damages may be brought, when, 537.046

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case: State v. Davis, 564 S.W.3d 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Davis, 564 S.W.3d 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “It is also significant that Davis was convicted under § 566.101, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, which prohibits a person from "purposely subject[ing] another person to sexual contact without that person's consent.”
State v. Ganzorig, 533 S.W.3d 824 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Section 566.101. 2 Section 566.010(3) defines “sexual contact” as any touching of another person’s genitals, either directly or through the clothing, “for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person.”
State of Missouri v. Ronald Ward, 485 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “We note *381 that subsequent to Ward’s crimes, in 2013, the offense of first-degree sexual misconduct was transferred to section 566.101 and .renamed second-degree sexual abuse.”
State v. Schuler, 563 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “References to section 566.101 is to RSMo Cum.Supp. 2013.”
Keeney v. Fitch, 458 S.W.3d 838 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “090 was transferred to and redesignated Section 566.101, rewritten and retitled “Second degree sexual abuse, penalties,” which at the current time provides as follows: Section 566.”
Liana MacColl (formerly known as Liana M. Bradford) v. Missouri State High. Patrol & Boone Cnty., Missouri, Sheriff (Mo. 2023). · cites it 16× “090, RSMo 1994, which later was transferred to section 566.101, RSMo Supp. 2013. MacColl argues, because section 566.”
Brock Smith v. St. Louis Cnty. Police (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “Louis County Police Department 2 We note that subsequent to Smith’s guilty plea, the offense previously known as “first-degree sexual misconduct” was transferred to § 566.”
Gary Austin v. Missouri State High. Patrol (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “090 offense of first-degree sexual misconduct was transferred to section 566.101 and was renamed second-degree sexual abuse.”
Liana MacColl (formerly known as Liana M. Bradford) v. Missouri State High. Patrol & Boone Cnty., Missouri, Sheriff (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “090 was redesignated and transferred to § 566.101, which is titled “Sexual abuse, second degree, penalties.”
Jerome Keeney, Jr. v. Tim Fitch, Superintendent of Police, St. Louis Cnty. & Colonel Ronald Replogle, Superintendent, Missouri High. Patrol, Defendants/Respondents. (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “090 was transferred to and redesignated Section 566.101, rewritten and retitled “Second degree sexual abuse, penalties,” which at the current time provides as follows: Section 566.”
Danny Joe Dixon v. Missouri State High. Patrol (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “The offense was “transferred to section 566.101 and renamed second-degree sexual abuse.”
William H. Drewel v. Missouri State High. Patrol & Cole Cnty. Sheriff John P. Wheeler (Mo. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “090 was transferred to and redesignated Section 566.101, rewritten and retitled ‘Second degree sexual abuse, penalties.”
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.