State v. Mishmash
290 P.3d 243
Kan.2012Background
- Mishmash charged with six counts of controlled substance violations; pled no contest to one manufacturing and one possession count.
- State recommended 84-month manufacturing sentence and 11 months concurrent possession.
- Sentencing included a finding that Mishmash was not manufacturing solely for personal use, triggering KORA registration.
- Court of Appeals affirmed registration requirement; this court granted review.
- Statutory text defined offender with personal-use exemption ambiguous on scope; record showed manufacturing for personal use and sharing/selling.
- 2011 amendment removed the personal-use exemption; court notes the amendment changes prior law and affects outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the personal-use exemption applies to manufacturing | Mishmash argues exemption applies only if manufacture is solely for personal use | State argues exemption can apply even if not exclusive to personal use | Exemption applies without requiring sole personal use |
| Whether court erred in reading 'solely' into statute | Mishmash contends no extra word should be added | State contends language supports more than one person's use | Court may not insert 'solely' into plain language |
| Effect of 2011 amendment removing personal-use exception | Mishmash relies on pre-amendment law | State notes amendment intended to narrow exemption | Amendment changes prior scope; issue vacated as moot for registration |
| Whether Sixth Amendment jury trial applies to registration determination | Mishmash argues jury trial required | No ruling needed since issue moot after vacatur | Court does not decide moot jury-right issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hopkins, 295 Kan. 579 (2012) (statutory interpretation governed by plain language; avoid speculation)
- State v. Bee, 288 Kan. 733 (2009) (amendments presumed to change law; older language expansive)
- Haddock v. State, 295 Kan. 738 (2012) (legislature's chosen language governs; avoid reading in words)
- O’Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 294 Kan. 318 (2012) (respect for clear statutory language promotes predictability)
- State v. LaGrange, 294 Kan. 623 (2012) (avoid useless or absurd results; interpret to reflect legislature)