¶1Seven judges concur in affirming the judgment of the circuit court. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
¶2LOWENSTEIN, J., concurs in separate opinion filed, in which HANNA, Sr.J., concurs.
¶3SPINDEN, J., concurs in separate opinion filed, in which SMART, J., concurs.
¶4BRECKENRIDGE, C.J., concurs in separate opinion filed, in which ULRICH and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ., concur.
¶5LAURA DENVIR STITH, J., dissents in separate opinion filed, in which ELLIS, J., and KENNEDY, Sr.J., concur.
¶6ELLIS, J., dissents in separate opinion filed, in which LAURA DENVIR STITH, J., concurs.
¶7dissenting.
¶8I concur in the ably written and tightly reasoned dissenting opinion of Judge Stith. I write separately merely to state that if Judge Breckenridge were correct in her view that Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1993) was overruled sub silencio by Washington by Washington v. Barnes Hosp., 897 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. banc 1995), and Mr. Butler’s conviction must therefore stand, it would become an inescapable fact that Mr. Butler received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Defense counsel acknowledged that he did not object to Ms. Duvenci’s testimony as a matter of trial strategy. As demonstrated by Judge Stith’s dissenting opinion and Judge Breckenridge’s concurring opinion, but for such unsound trial strategy, Mr. Butler could not have been convicted. Accordingly, defense counsel’s trial strategy would not have conformed to the degree of skill, care and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney, and Mr. Butler would clearly have been prejudiced thereby. State v. Colbert, 949 S.W.2d 932, 940 (Mo.App. W.D.1997).