Attempted Murder Defense

Facing the Most Serious Allegation Short of Homicide

An attempted murder charge places your freedom and future squarely on the line even though no life was actually taken. Missouri prosecutors treat the offense almost as severely as murder itself because the law punishes the intent and the steps taken toward a killing, not simply the final outcome. When law enforcement believes you planned a homicide and began to carry it out, you can expect an aggressive prosecution, intense media attention, and the very real prospect of spending many years in a state prison.

At Scrivner Law Firm, we approach every attempted murder case with the urgency it demands. Founding attorney Dayrell L. Scrivner spent more than twenty years inside the prosecutor’s office before devoting his practice to criminal defense, and that experience gives our team a precise understanding of how the State builds and tries to prove intent‑to‑kill cases. Clients throughout Taney, Stone, and Christian Counties rely on us to dismantle those cases piece by piece and safeguard their constitutional rights.

Dayrell Scrivner’s Perspective: Two Decades Inside the Prosecution

As Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Mr. Scrivner supervised complex violent‑crime dockets, trained younger attorneys, and worked closely with investigators on attempted homicide files. He now applies the same insight on the defense side, which means he can often anticipate every witness, exhibit, and argument the State is likely to unveil at trial. Because he has lectured at Missouri police academies on criminal procedure, he also spots defects in search warrants, interrogation tactics, and forensic handling that less experienced counsel may overlook. When your liberty is measured in decades, that dual background matters.

Understanding Attempted Murder Under Missouri Law

The Statutory Framework

Missouri’s attempt statute (§ 562.012 RSMo) makes it a separate offense to perform a “substantial step” toward the commission of any crime, provided the actor harbors the purpose to complete it. A substantial step is conduct strongly corroborative of that purpose and goes beyond mere preparation.

Homicide itself is defined in § 565.020 (first‑degree murder) and § 565.021 (second‑degree murder). Attempted first‑degree murder arises when a defendant, with deliberation, intentionally engages in a substantial step toward killing another person. Attempted second‑degree murder covers purposeful actions to cause death without premeditation, or knowingly causing serious injury that would likely be fatal if completed.

Elements the State Must Prove

1. Intent to Kill – clear proof that the accused consciously desired the victim’s death.
   
2. Deliberation or Knowledge – the mental element corresponding to first‑ or second‑degree murder.
   
3. Substantial Step – conduct that confirms the intent, such as firing a weapon, lying in wait with a loaded gun, paying a hit man, or luring the victim to an ambush.

If any element falters (perhaps the act was purely preparatory, or the intent was something short of homicide) the charge should not stand.

Penalty Exposure

Missouri classifies an attempt one grade lower than the completed crime. First‑degree murder is a Class A felony, so attempted first‑degree murder is a Class B felony carrying five to fifteen years in the Department of Corrections. Attempted second‑degree murder is a Class C felony with a range of three to ten years. Judges may order sentences to run consecutively if multiple counts are proved, and armed criminal action enhancements frequently add mandatory, consecutive time.

The prison term is only part of the story. A conviction triggers lifetime firearm disabilities, restrictions on housing and employment, a permanent violent‑felony record, and in some circumstances exposure to federal charges.

Case Law That Shapes Missouri Attempted Murder Defense

• State v. Molasky, 765 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. banc 1989) – The Supreme Court reversed an attempted murder conviction where the defendant merely solicited another inmate to commit the killing. Conversation alone was insufficient; tangible action toward the homicide was missing.
  
• State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. banc 1999) – The Court clarified that Missouri follows the Model Penal Code substantial‑step test and rejected prior decisions conflating common‑law and statutory attempt doctrines. Prosecutors must connect the defendant’s conduct, not just intentions, to the imminent commission of the crime.
  
• State v. Mitchell, 170 Mo. 633, 71 S.W. 175 (1902) – An early but still‑cited ruling affirming an attempted murder conviction when the accused fired into a bed he believed the victim occupied. The case illustrates that factual impossibility (the victim was not present) will not defeat attempt liability once the shot is fired.

Defense counsel must wield these precedents to highlight gaps in the prosecution’s timeline and acts, especially when officers arrest on the strength of text messages, undercover recordings, or weapons found long before any confrontation.

Building a Strategic Defense

No Substantial Step

When officers intervene early, the alleged step may be nothing more than obtaining a weapon or driving toward the victim’s house. We argue that Missouri law demands a closer nexus between the act and a homicide in progress. Surveillance footage, phone metadata, and eyewitness timelines often demonstrate that the plan was still contingent or uncertain.

Lack of Intent to Kill

The State must show a conscious purpose to cause death. Injuries inflicted in a sudden fight may point to a lesser assault charge, not attempted murder. Inconsistencies in police interviews, medical records showing superficial wounds, and the absence of incriminating statements can erode proof of intent.

Self‑Defense and Justification

Missouri’s self‑defense statutes permit deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to protect against death or serious harm. Evidence of the alleged victim’s aggression, prior threats, or possession of a weapon can justify the defendant’s actions even if shots were fired.

Procedural Safeguards

Suppressed statements or illegally seized firearms will cripple the State’s narrative. Former prosecutor Dayrell Scrivner’s experience identifying search‑warrant defects and Miranda violations allows us to press for dismissal or critical evidentiary exclusions at pre‑trial hearings.

In exceptionally complex matters involving ballistics, gunshot‑residue testing, or cell‑site analysis, we partner with independent forensic experts whose testimony can neutralize the State’s laboratory findings.

From Arrest to Resolution: The Scrivner Law Firm Process

Early Intervention – We reach out to law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney immediately to gather disclosure, preserve surveillance video, and protect the client from additional interviews.

Bond Strategy – By presenting strong community ties and addressing public‑safety concerns, we often secure release conditions that let the accused continue working and supporting family during the case.

Discovery Review – Every body‑camera clip, 911 recording, and forensic report is logged into a case map that tracks facts against each statutory element. Discrepancies become the backbone of suppression motions and cross‑examination.

Negotiation or Trial – Sometimes a reduced assault plea spares the uncertainties of trial; in other instances, an acquittal is achievable. Mr. Scrivner’s credibility with local prosecutors stems from his years inside their office and frequently results in fairer offers for our clients. When trial is the only just path, we treat jury selection, expert testimony, and closing argument as opportunities to illustrate reasonable doubt in vivid, compelling detail.

Local Insight Makes a Difference

Courthouses in Forsyth, Galena, and Ozark each have unique cultures. Judges vary in how they schedule motions, handle expert‑witness challenges, and instruct juries on attempt liability. Dayrell Scrivner’s longstanding relationships with court staff, probation officers, and local investigators translate into smoother logistics and fewer surprises. His network also helps locate character witnesses and craft community‑based sentencing alternatives when appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will an attempted murder conviction carry the same stigma as a completed homicide?
While the sentence may be shorter, the violent‑felony label and lifelong firearm ban are identical. Employers, landlords, and professional licensing boards often view both offenses as equally serious.

Can the charge be reduced to assault in the first degree?
Yes. If intent to kill cannot be proved, or the injuries show no lethal aim, skilled defense counsel can negotiate or litigate for an assault charge, which generally carries lower penalties and parole prospects.

What if the intended victim was never hurt?
Physical injury is not required. The focus is on your intent and how close you came to completing the crime. That is why meticulous analysis of timing, distance, and opportunity is so important.

Does self‑defense apply even when nobody was shot?
Absolutely. Missouri law protects pre‑emptive use of force when you reasonably believe deadly force is imminent against you or another person. Documented threats, prior stalking, or forensic evidence of the alleged victim’s weapon can support this defense.

Take Immediate Action to Protect Your Future

Attempted murder allegations intensify quickly. Evidence can disappear, witnesses can be coached, and the State will marshal every resource to portray you as a future killer. Start leveling the field today by putting a former prosecutor with thirty plus years of courtroom experience on your side.

Call Scrivner Law Firm or complete our confidential online form to schedule a consultation. We will listen to your story, explain the road ahead, and begin crafting a defense aimed at preserving your freedom, reputation, and peace of mind.