State v. Sisson, 302 Kan. 123

Early morning traffic stop and pursuit after driver failed to signal and accelerated; Sisson was the driver and was stopped and detained.
Officers found an electronic scale and a baggie of marijuana in Sisson’s pocket; later nine baggies of marijuana and one baggie of cocaine were found in the roadway, tied similarly to the pocket baggie.
Jury convicted Sisson of possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia (scale), possession of cocaine, and fleeing/eluding while committing multiple moving violations; acquitted on certain tax-stamp and distribution counts.
During deliberations, the jury asked whether cocaine residue on the scale could support a possession conviction; the court told the jury it must be unanimous as to which item they believed to be cocaine.
Defense objected at trial that the prosecution failed to provide an onboard pursuit videotape in advance; the court admitted the tape and allowed counsel to review it at trial.
Defense did not object to jury instructions on paraphernalia at trial; on appeal Sisson argued the paraphernalia instruction improperly compelled the jury to treat scales as paraphernalia.

Issue	Sisson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Jury answer to question about cocaine residue on scale	Court’s written reply was inaccurate/non-responsive; residue was never charged	Charging documents and instructions permitted conviction based on either cocaine residue or baggie; jury must be unanimous on one theory	Affirmed — court’s answer proper; charging and instructions covered both theories and unanimity requirement satisfied
Failure to disclose onboard video pretrial	State failed to produce videotape as required by discovery, prejudicing defense	Tape was available throughout; record fails to show State withheld it; defense suffered no prejudice	Affirmed — no demonstrable discovery violation or prejudice shown in record
Paraphernalia instruction (scales defined as paraphernalia)	Instruction invaded jury factfinding by effectively directing a guilty finding	Instruction mirrored statute and PIK; read with other instructions, jury still had to find intent/use as paraphernalia	Affirmed (majority): instructions as a whole were proper; no reversible error
Use of conclusive presumption in paraphernalia instruction (concurring view)	Instruction could be read as mandatory, conflicting with presumption of innocence	Any error was harmless given strong evidence scale was used for drugs	Concurring: instruction erroneous under Carella but harmless; conviction stands

State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 (2006) (unanimity requirement when multiple theories of commission exist)
State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591 (2014) (multiple-acts analysis; jury must agree on specific act when alternative acts are alleged)
State v. Brice, 276 Kan. 758 (2004) (court may not instruct jury that particular evidence conclusively establishes an element—invades jury factfinding)
Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (1989) (conclusive presumptions in jury instructions conflict with presumption of innocence)
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) (harmless-error analysis for erroneous jury instructions in criminal cases)
State v. Berry, 223 Kan. 102 (1977) (any amount of a controlled substance, even unmeasurable residue, suffices for possession)