State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422

Hensley was convicted of possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana with no tax stamp, and possession of drug paraphernalia; officers executed a warrant at his residence after tips and prior history suggested involvement in marijuana activity.
A search warrant affidavit relied on old records, past arrests, fingerprint on marijuana, and two recent informant tips (one unidentified, one from Hensley’s ex-girlfriend Crystal Post).
Stale information included a 1997 juvenile adjudication and 2+ year-old prior events; two recent tips were evaluated under Gates totality-of-circumstances.
Hensley requested compulsory process to secure Post’s appearance; district court assisted but never ruled on a pickup order or Post’s appearance, and Post did not testify at trial.
Court of Appeals affirmed most rulings, including probable cause and non-multiplicity, while Hensley sought reversal on suppression, compulsory process, and multiplicity grounds; this Court granted review.
This Court reverses the marijuana possession conviction as multiplicious with no tax stamp and affirms the remaining convictions and holdings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for the search warrant	Hensley contends the affidavit lacked a substantial basis for probable cause	State maintained the affidavit provided a substantial basis and warrant was proper	Probable cause supported the warrant; some stale info was outweighed by other probative facts
Compulsory process for Post’s appearance	Hensley claims the district court failed to issue appropriate process to secure Post	District court did not deny the request; procedures were attempted	Claim fails; district court never ruled on the pick-up order because the request was not renewed and was effectively unresolved
Multiplicity of possession offenses under 21-3107(2)(b)	Convictions for possession and no tax stamp were multiplicitous	Legislature intended two distinct offenses despite overlapping elements	Convictions are multiplicitous; reverse the conviction for possession of marijuana; keep the no-tax-stamp conviction

State v. Hicks, 282 Kan. 599 (Kan. 2006) (probable-cause review is deferential under totality-of-the-circumstances)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (informant tips weighed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 (Kan. 2006) (two-step double jeopardy/multiplicity framework; same-elements test guidance)
K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(b), Not a case; statutory provision cited (2013) (supplies framework for prohibiting multiple punishments for greater and lesser offenses)
State v. Adams, 218 Kan. 495 (Kan. 1976) (compulsory process standard and district court discretion in service of process)
State v. Berberich, 248 Kan. 854 (Kan. 1991) (multiplicity considerations in marijuana offenses)