Tex. Codes » Penal Code · TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY · CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER
Texas Codes

Tex. Penal Code § 7.02 (2026)

Criminal Responsibility For Conduct Of Another

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:

(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;

(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or

(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.

(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. In this subsection, "conspiracy" means an agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by:

Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 735 (H.B. 2961), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,328 cases (99 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. State, 560 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. State, 560 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.02 practice cmt. (West 1974).”
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that Court to conduct a harm analysis under Code of Criminal Procedure 36.”
In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Penal Code § 7.02; Malik, supra. . Tex.”
Zamora, Jaime Arturo, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “Tex. Penal Code § 7.02. 4 . We note that a trial court’s burden to sua sponte instruct the jury on accomplice-witness testimony arises only when the evidence raises the issue.”
Marable v. State, 85 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02 ; see also Rico v.”
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2). Further, if in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all con *14 spirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense…”
Wilson v. State, 185 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 7.02 (a)(2); Whitaker v.”
Barnes v. State, 56 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 7.02 (a)(2), 19.03(a)(2).”
Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02 (b) (Vernon 2003); Frank, 183 S.”
Nava, Andres Maldonado, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “02(a) is the criminal mens rea of each accomplice; each may be convicted of only those crimes for which he had the requisite mental state,” and quoting Professor LaFave for the proposition that "it is equally possible that the killer is guilty only of manslaughter because of his…”
Hanson v. State, 55 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02 (a)(2), (b) (West 1994).”
Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “(Emphasis added); see also Texas Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2). A subsequent explanation paragraph in the charge required even more explicitly that appellant must have intended the victim's death in order to be convicted: Before you would be warranted in finding the defendant guilty…”
Show all 1,328 citing cases →
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Jacob Cartlidge, Jr., 808 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1987).
Cortney Woods v. State (Tex. App. 2019).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(A)(2) — 1 case
Stanford Harvey v. State (Tex. App. 2011).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(a) — 62 cases
Johnson v. State, 560 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.02 practice cmt. (West 1974).”
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that Court to conduct a harm analysis under Code of Criminal Procedure 36.”
Lindsay v. State, 102 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 2003).
Zamora, Jaime Arturo, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “Tex. Penal Code § 7.02. 4 . We note that a trial court’s burden to sua sponte instruct the jury on accomplice-witness testimony arises only when the evidence raises the issue.”
Foster v. Quarterman, 466 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2006).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(a)(1) — 16 cases
Johnson v. State, 560 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.02 practice cmt. (West 1974).”
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that Court to conduct a harm analysis under Code of Criminal Procedure 36.”
Nava, Andres Maldonado, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “02(a) is the criminal mens rea of each accomplice; each may be convicted of only those crimes for which he had the requisite mental state,” and quoting Professor LaFave for the proposition that "it is equally possible that the killer is guilty only of manslaughter because of his…”
Hefner v. State, 735 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. App. 1987).
Duron v. State, 915 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App. 1996).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2) — 510 cases
In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “See Tex. Penal Code § 7.02; Malik, supra. . Tex.”
Wilson v. State, 185 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 7.02 (a)(2); Whitaker v.”
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that Court to conduct a harm analysis under Code of Criminal Procedure 36.”
Johnson v. State, 560 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “TEX. PENAL CODE § 7.02 practice cmt. (West 1974).”
Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2)(1994) — 1 case
Klumpe v. IBP, Inc., 309 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2002).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2)(2015) — 1 case
Ana Deisi Martinez Banos v. State (Tex. App. 2015).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(a)(3) — 16 cases
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that Court to conduct a harm analysis under Code of Criminal Procedure 36.”
State v. Jackson, 944 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
David Austin Price v. State, 456 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App. 2015).
Shawntrell Dawkins v. State, 557 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. App. 2016).
Ladner v. State, 790 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. App. 1988).
— Tex. Penal Code § 7.02(b) — 170 cases
Zamora, Jaime Arturo, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “Tex. Penal Code § 7.02. 4 . We note that a trial court’s burden to sua sponte instruct the jury on accomplice-witness testimony arises only when the evidence raises the issue.”
Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
Anderson, Rodney Young, 416 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “See Tex. Penal Code § 7.02; Malik, supra. . Tex.”
Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
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.