State v. Eckert, 522 P.3d 796

Background:

In Dec. 2016 police executed a search of Justin Eckert's home after domestic-violence reports and found a tent, 9 mature marijuana plants, and over 25 items of alleged drug paraphernalia (including a propane tank and a blower).
The State charged Eckert with multiple offenses, including eight felony counts under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5709(b)(1) (manufacture/cultivate) and 21 misdemeanor counts under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5709(b)(2) (storage/introducing); four misdemeanor counts were dismissed pretrial.
A jury convicted Eckert on the remaining counts; the trial court imposed sentences and Eckert appealed raising multiplicity and sufficiency challenges to two paraphernalia items (propane tank and blower).
The Court of Appeals held the paraphernalia convictions within each statutory subsection were multiplicitous and reversed all but one felony and one misdemeanor paraphernalia conviction.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: it held the phrase "drug paraphernalia" is a mass (uncountable) noun, the statute is ambiguous as to the unit of prosecution, and on statutory-construction grounds (avoid absurd results and rule of lenity) concluded the Legislature intended one unit of prosecution covering multiple paraphernalia items per subsection; the court therefore affirmed reversal of the excess convictions and did not reach the sufficiency challenge to the propane/blower.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Eckert's Argument	Held
Whether multiple convictions under a single subsection of K.S.A. 21-5709(b) were multiplicitous (unit of prosecution)	"Any drug paraphernalia" is plain: each separate item may be charged as its own unit	Multiple items used for the same purpose in a single grow operation constitute a single unit of prosecution	Convictions arose from same conduct; unit-of-prosecution test applies; statute ambiguous; only one conviction per subsection (one felony and one misdemeanor) allowed; remaining counts vacated
Whether "drug paraphernalia" is singular (per-item) or a mass noun (indeterminate aggregate)	"Paraphernalia" can be read as singular/plural so statute permits per-item charges	The term functions as a mass (noncount) noun; statute ambiguous as to per-item units	Court finds "paraphernalia" is a mass (uncountable) noun; plain language ambiguous about unit of prosecution
Proper interpretive rules when statute is ambiguous (canons; absurd-results avoidance; rule of lenity)	Plain meaning favors the State; prosecutorial discretion addresses overcharging concerns	Ambiguity must be resolved in defendant's favor; construing per-item leads to absurd/arbitrary results	To avoid absurd results and under rule of lenity, interpret statute to tie one unit of prosecution to multiple paraphernalia items in indeterminate numbers
Sufficiency of evidence that the propane tank and blower were drug paraphernalia	Evidence showed items were used together (heater for grow operation) and supported convictions	Insufficient evidence that those items qualified as paraphernalia	Court did not decide sufficiency; disposition on multiplicity made that issue unnecessary

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238 (Kan. 2009) (defines multiplicity and double jeopardy concerns)
State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 (Kan. 2006) (articulates two-part multiplicity inquiry and unit-of-prosecution v. strict-elements tests)
Johnson v. U.S. Food Serv., 312 Kan. 597 (Kan. 2021) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language)
State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648 (Kan. 2018) (turn to canons when statute is ambiguous)
State v. Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005 (Kan. 2014) (courts avoid absurd or unreasonable statutory results)
State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 750 (Kan. 2016) (rule of lenity applies where criminal statute is ambiguous)
State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84 (Kan. 2012) (lenity requires choosing defendant-favorable interpretation when two reasonable readings exist)
Bruce v. Kelly, 316 Kan. 218 (Kan. 2022) (consider definitional statutes in pari materia when construing substantive criminal statutes)