# Smith v. State

> Supreme Court of Missouri · January 11, 2005 · 152 S.W.3d 275

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9642658

## Case

- **Full name:** Wayman SMITH, III, Et Al., Respondents, v. STATE of Missouri, Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** January 11, 2005
- **Citations:** 152 S.W.3d 275; 2005 Mo. LEXIS 2; 2005 WL 44386
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Price
- **Judges:** Limbaugh, Wolff, Stith, Russell, White, Teitelman, Price
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9642658

## Opinion text

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the statutory construction set out in the majority opinion. There can be no serious doubt that the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners is an agency of the State of Missouri. As such, the *281 literal interpretation of the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF), as established in section 105.711 et seq., RSMo 2000, provides coverage. Nonetheless, section 105.711 is somewhat at odds with the spirit of chapter 84, particularly section 84.210, RSMo 2000, which requires the City of St. Louis to pay the expenses of the Board of Police Commissioners and the St. Louis Police Department.
This Court cannot rule on the basis of speculation, especially in the face of the literal language of a statute. Should the general assembly find the result of this case undesirable, it might simply except either the St. Louis Police Department or the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, or both, from coverage by the SLEF and provide that this expense should be paid by the City of St. Louis. Alternatively, of course, should the general assembly find that the result of this case is precisely what it intended, no further action would be necessary.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9642658. Public record. Not legal advice.