Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 570
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.070 (2026)

Claim of right

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

  570.070.  Claim of right. — 1.  A person does not commit an offense under section 570.030 if, at the time of the appropriation, he or she:

  (1)  Acted in the honest belief that he had the right to do so; or

  (2)  Acted in the honest belief that the owner, if present, would have consented to the appropriation.

  2.  The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of claim of right.

­­--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: State v. Quisenberry, 639 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Quisenberry, 639 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. 1982). · cites it 14× “Defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the special negative defense of claim of right created in § 570.070: 570.070. 1. A person does not commit an offense under section 570.”
State v. January, 176 S.W.3d 187 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “1, because it failed, as required by Note on Use 5, to instruct the jury on a claim-of-right defense, as provided in § 570.070, based on the appellant’s contention that there was evidence adduced at trial sufficient to inject the issue.”
State v. Thompson, 390 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “The Section 570.070 claim-of-right defense is by its terms applicable only to those persons charged with stealing under Section 570.”
State v. Harney, 51 S.W.3d 519 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Section 570.070, RSMo 1994, provides for a defense of claim of right if the defendant acted in the honest belief that he had a right to appropriate the property or in the honest belief that the owner, if present, would have consented to the appropriation.”
State v. Hontz, 655 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “Section 570.070, RSMo 1978 precludes the conviction of the accused for the crime of stealing if at the time of the appropriation the person acted in the honest belief he had the right to do so.”
State v. Shubert, 747 S.W.2d 165 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “1 Notes on Use and § 570.070, RSMo 1986. Appellant argues that the jury should have considered whether he held an honest belief that he had a right to possession of the automobile based on consent from Hatcher.”
State v. Kramer, 809 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “§ 570.070, RSMo 1986. Since the defendant has the burden of injecting the issue of claim of right into the case, if he has not done so then no instruction is required.”
State v. Lewis, 633 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “All elements of stealing must be proven, and defenses to stealing, such as claim of right (§ 570.070) will also be a defense to a robbery charge.”
State v. Winkelmann, 761 S.W.2d 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “5, the verdict director on Count I — stealing the keys valued at less than $150, the court noted that defense counsel, prior to trial, had submitted a written memorandum notifying that the defense of a claim of right, pursuant to § 570.070, R.S.Mo.1986, would be utilized.”
State v. Smith, 684 S.W.2d 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “” Section 570.070, RSMo 1978, provides that a person does not commit stealing under § 570.”
State v. Seddens, 624 S.W.2d 470 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “3(2) to which he was entitled under § 570.070, RSMo 1978, an instruction which Seddens contends the court should have given sua sponte.”
State v. Stiers, 610 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “070, RSMo 1978 states that this provision was based, in part, upon the Model Penal Code § 206.10. § 570.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.070(1): 1 case
State v. Beishline, 920 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.070(2): 1 case
State v. Cascone, 648 S.W.2d 190 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
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.