England v. State, 85 S.W.3d at 110. However, both of those cases were decided after State v. White and State v. Roberts and neither made any mention of those cases. They also did not discuss the plain language of § 562.041 and MAI-CR3d 304.04. Because we are bound by the most recent holding of our Supreme Court on the issue, State v. Burgin, 203 S.W.3d 713, 717 (Mo.App.2006), State v. Neal and England v. State, and their progeny, to the extent they require dual accomplice intent, by holding that an accomplice must not only purposely promote the underlying offense, but must also possess the requisite intent for the underlying offense, they were never good law and should not be followed. Hence, other than in the case of murder in the first degree, see State v. O’Brien, 857 S.W.2d at 218 (<HOLDING>), the only showing required as to the culpable
holding error is not harmless when the accused is convicted of firstdegree murder on a general verdict after a trial in which premeditation and felony murder theories are espoused if the felony underlying the felony murder charge is based on a legally unsupportable theory holding that general verdicts failed to reveal whether defendant was convicted on accomplice liability theory and that evidence supported accomplice liability theory holding that in order to convict a defendant of firstdegree murder on a theory of accomplice liability proof of his own premeditation is required holding defendants federal constitutional due process right was violated because jury instructions permitted jury to convict him of firstdegree murder without finding separately all three elements of the crime willfulness deliberation and premeditation holding inter alia that conviction of firstdegree premeditated murder on an aiding and abetting theory requires the prosecution to prove that the accomplice acted with premeditation and deliberation and intent to kill