Court Opinion

ID: 9764793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:40:44.264023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:48.315302
License: Public Domain

SATZ, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. As noted in footnote 3 of the majority opinion, the defense of necessity was not used at trial in the present case. As also noted by the majority, the defense of necessity was raised in City of St. Louis v. Klocker, 637 S.W.2d 174 (Mo.App.1982). The facts in Klocker are similar to the present facts. In Klocker, the majority rejected the defense of necessity. I au*910thored the majority opinion. I found the defense of necessity to be unpersuasive. I would find it equally unpersuasive here.