State v. Allen, 372 P.3d 432

Trooper James Parr stopped Joseph Allen for not wearing a seatbelt, observed signs of intoxication, and asked Allen to exit for field sobriety tests. Allen admitted drinking an open beer in the vehicle.
While Parr patted Allen down, Parr felt a hard object in Allen's front right pocket; Allen fled on foot. Parr radioed for backup and began searching Allen's truck for alcohol and to inventory prior to towing.
Parr found a homemade "sand club," two scales (one with visible white powder residue), a leafy green substance on the floorboard, and a pipe with white powdery residue in a lunch box. KBI testing identified methamphetamine on the scale residue and inside the pipe; the scale residue also contained THC; the leafy material was marijuana.
Allen was charged with multiple offenses including possession of methamphetamine; a jury convicted him of six charges (acquittal on criminal use of a weapon) and the court sentenced him to 20 months for methamphetamine possession. Allen appealed.
On appeal Allen argued (1) insufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the methamphetamine residue on the scale/pipe, and (2) the reasonable-doubt jury instruction (PIK Crim. 4th 51.010) improperly foreclosed jury nullification by using the word "should." The court reviewed sufficiency under the usual light-most-favorable standard and reviewed the instruction for clear error (no contemporaneous objection).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Allen)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowing possession of methamphetamine	Visible residue on items in Allen's vehicle and proximity support a reasonable inference Allen knew of and controlled the drugs	Residue was de minimis/oversight; State failed to prove Allen knew about the small amount of residue	Affirmed: circumstantial evidence (visible residue on scale and pipe in Allen's vehicle) supports a rational jury finding of knowing possession
Jury reasonable-doubt instruction and jury nullification	PIK Crim. 4th 51.010 properly instructs jury; "should" is advisory and does not compel conviction	The instruction's use of "should" effectively directed a verdict, eliminating jury nullification	Affirmed: Instruction not legally inappropriate or clearly erroneous; "should" is advisory, unlike mandatory terms such as "must" or "will."

State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364 (2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence conviction appeals)
State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614 (2008) (circumstantial evidence may support conviction without excluding all other reasonable inferences)
State v. McClanahan, 212 Kan. 208 (1973) (jury must apply law to evidence; courts should not instruct juries to nullify)
State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55 (2011) (rejecting instructions that endorse jury nullification or permit jury to ignore law)
State v. Smith-Parker, 301 Kan. 132 (2014) (instruction using mandatory phrasing can improperly direct a verdict and constitute error)