State v. Hill, 111226

Barbara Hill pled (Alford) to possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture and possession of methamphetamine for conduct in May 2010.
At the time of the offense K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 22-4902 exempted persons who manufactured for personal use from KORA registration; the Legislature removed that personal-use exemption in 2011.
Hill asked the sentencing court to apply the pre-2011 statute and find her manufacture was for personal use; the court applied the amended 2011 version and ordered her to register.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the registration duty is civil and not punitive for Ex Post Facto purposes; Hill sought review in the Kansas Supreme Court.
The Kansas Supreme Court applied the Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez intent-effects test and related Kansas precedents, requiring "clearest proof" that KORA’s effects are punitive as applied to drug offenders distinct from sex offenders.
The court concluded the record was insufficiently developed to meet the "clearest proof" standard and affirmed the district court; three justices dissented, arguing registration is punitive in effect regardless of offender class.

Issue	Hill's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether retroactive application of the 2011 KORA amendments to Hill violates the Ex Post Facto Clause	Retroactive application imposes punitive burdens (registration) and thus is prohibited	KORA registration is civil/regulatory and nonpunitive; retroactive application is permissible	Court held Hill failed to show retroactive application was punitive as to drug offenders because the record lacks the "clearest proof" required to distinguish effects from sex-offender registration schemes; affirmed registration requirement
Whether drug offenders as a class are sufficiently distinguishable from sex offenders so KORA’s effects are punitive when applied to them	Hill: drug-offender experience with KORA is materially different and punitive in effect	State: no persuasive record showing a material difference; legislative intent was civil regulation	Court required a robust, fact-developed record and found Hill’s record insufficient to meet this burden; she did not overcome legislative intent
Standard and burden of proof for proving punitive effect under Kennedy/Mendoza‑Martinez	Hill: the effects test should recognize KORA’s punitive impact on drug offenders	State: the established "clearest proof" standard applies and Hill did not meet it	Court reiterated that "clearest proof" is required and that appellate review must be grounded on developed, fact-intensive records; Hill failed to meet it

Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (provides intent‑effects test to determine whether a statutory scheme is punitive)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (deference to legislative intent and "clearest proof" rule for converting civil regulatory schemes into punishment)
State v. Petersen‑Beard, 304 Kan. 192 (2016) (Kansas Supreme Court applied Kennedy test and held lifetime sex‑offender registration is nonpunitive)
State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 (1996) (Kansas concluded KORA was enacted as a nonpunitive civil regulatory scheme)
Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. 291 (2016) (upheld Myers' determination of legislative intent regarding KORA)
State v. Mishmash, 295 Kan. 1140 (2012) (defendant manufacturing for both sale and personal use not required to register under prior law)