State v. Shanklin, 534 S.W.3d 240

Background

St. Louis detectives investigated high electricity usage at Mark Shanklin’s residence, obtained consent to search, and found 300+ live marijuana plants, packaged marijuana, a dryer, and a digital scale.
Shanklin admitted cultivating marijuana to pay debts and for personal use.
State charged Shanklin with: production of a controlled substance (§ 195.211), possession with intent to distribute (§ 195.211), and possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 195.233).
Shanklin moved to dismiss Counts I and II, arguing §§ 195.211 and 195.017 were unconstitutional facially and as applied because article I, section 35 of the Missouri Constitution protects farmers’ rights to engage in farming practices (he claimed marijuana cultivation was a protected farming practice).
The circuit court denied the motion, convicted Shanklin, and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms; Shanklin appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court challenging the statutes under article I, section 35.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether article I, § 35 protects marijuana cultivation from criminal prohibition	Shanklin: § 35 guarantees right of farmers/ranchers to engage in farming practices, which includes marijuana cultivation	State: § 35 protects lawful farming/ranching; it does not repeal or override criminal statutes prohibiting controlled substances	Held: § 35 does not protect illegal marijuana cultivation; statutes remain constitutional as applied to Shanklin
Whether §§ 195.211 and 195.017 are facially or as-applied unconstitutional under § 35	Shanklin: statutes violate constitutional right to farm both facially and as applied	State: statutes presumed constitutional; § 35’s prefatory and operative language do not indicate intent to legalize controlled substances	Held: Shanklin failed to meet burden to show statutes clearly and undoubtedly violate the constitution
Scope of § 35’s protection and interplay with regulatory authority	Shanklin: § 35 creates broad protection for farming practices, implying immunity from regulation criminalizing marijuana	State: § 35’s prefatory purpose ties protection to agriculture that benefits Missouri’s economy and expressly allows regulation under article VI	Held: § 35 must be read in context; it contemplates regulation and does not implicitly repeal state/federal drug laws
Whether historical illegality of marijuana affects § 35’s meaning	Shanklin: post-amendment protection could encompass previously illegal practices now framed as farming	State: longstanding illegality implies voters did not intend to legalize controlled substances via § 35	Held: Because cultivation was illegal when § 35 was proposed/adopted, voters did not intend to shield illegal drug activity

Key Cases Cited

Hill v. Boyer, 480 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. banc 2016) (constitutional challenges reviewed de novo)
Lopez-Matias v. State, 504 S.W.3d 716 (Mo. banc 2016) (statute presumed constitutional; burden on challenger)
State v. Vaughn, 366 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. banc 2012) (challenger must prove statute clearly violates constitutional limits)
Shoemyer v. Mo. Sec’y of State, 464 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. banc 2015) (procedural history of article I, § 35’s referral and adoption)
Sch. Dist. of Kan. City v. State, 317 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. banc 2010) (interpretation aims to effectuate voters’ intent)
State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. banc 2013) (words given their plain, ordinary, natural meaning)
Wright-Jones v. Nasheed, 368 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2012) (constitutional language interpreted by ordinary meaning)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (link between prefatory and operative constitutional language)
United States v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2006) (recognizing continued regulation of controlled substances despite agricultural claims)