Case Title: State v. Hill

Citation: 252 Kan. 637, 847 P.2d 1267

Docket Number: 67,790

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1993-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
252 Kan. 637 (1993)
847 P.2d 1267
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
PAUL D. HILL, Appellee.
No. 67,790

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 5, 1993.
Melanie S. Jack, assistant attorney general, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Jon R. Craig, of Garden City, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an appeal by the prosecution pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1) from an order dismissing an information charging unlawfully arranging sales or purchases of controlled substances using a communication facility (K.S.A. 65-4141).
The facts are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows. In the spring of 1990, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) was involved in investigations concerning the distribution of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in western Kansas and the murder of Clyde Kobbeman. As a result thereof, the KBI had a wiretap on the residential phone of Susan Garrison from October 26, 1990, to November 11, 1990. On November 5, 1990, Ms. Garrison telephoned defendant Paul Hill in Garden City. The call was recorded by the KBI via the wiretap and was designated by the KBI as conversation No. 240. The charge against defendant Hill herein is based upon conversation No. 240.
K.S.A. 65-4141 provides:
The information filed herein charged violation of all three prongs of the statute: conspiring, soliciting, and facilitating. At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate found no evidence of conspiracy or solicitation, but found the State had met its burden of proof relative to facilitation. The magistrate, however, bound defendant over on all three prongs of the statute, and the information filed reflects that determination.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information. The district court noted the fact that the magistrate had found no evidence of conspiracy or solicitation, reviewed the record of the preliminary hearing, and concurred with the magistrate's determination relative thereto. The district court concluded that allegations of conspiracy and solicitation in the information were surplusage and of no force and effect. The district court then held that the facilitation prong of K.S.A. 65-4141 required proof of a felony violation of K.S.A. 65-4127a and K.S.A. 65-4127b. It is uncontroverted that such proof is absent herein. The district court then dismissed the information, and the State appeals therefrom.
On appeal, the State contends it should have been permitted to proceed under both the conspiracy and facilitation prongs of the statute. The solicitation prong has been abandoned as a basis for prosecution herein.
Conversation No. 240, upon which the prosecution herein rests, is as follows:
*639 (SUE is Susan Garrison.)
(PAUL is Paul Hill, defendant.)
"PAUL: Hello.
"SUE: Paul.
"PAUL: Ya.
"SUE: What are you doing?
"PAUL: Oh, just got home here for a little bit.
"SUE: Are you going back out there?
"PAUL: Ah, ya.
"SUE: Or are you goofing off?
"PAUL: Oh, I'm probably going back out there later.
"PAUL: Not right now.
"SUE: Come on.
"PAUL: Waitin for Leroy to call me yet today.
"SUE: Oh, really.
"PAUL: Ya.
"SUE: Think he will?
"PAUL: I hope so.
"SUE: Me too.
"SUE: Ya. Does he usually when he tells ya he does?
"PAUL: Ya. I don't know when it will be though.
"PAUL: I know what you mean.
"PAUL: OK.
"PAUL: I don't think so.
"PAUL: Ya. If I go back out there I will.
"PAUL: OK.
"SUE: It's out front.
"PAUL: OK.
"PAUL: OK ... well I'll be by.
"SUE: Do your best. OK.
"PAUL: All right.
*640 "SUE: All right. Thanks. Bye."
At this point, several matters relative to the conversation need to be noted. Although both the magistrate and the district court were provided with transcribed copies of conversation No. 240, neither the tape nor a transcribed copy thereof has been provided to this court for consideration on appeal. The material set forth herein as being conversation No. 240 is taken from the defendant's brief. As the State has not seen fit to provide us with conversation No. 240 in any form and does not challenge that which was set forth in defendant's brief as being the conversation, we accept the latter as a true and correct transcription of the conversation.
We also note that while a Garden City detective testified to the meaning of various terms of drug dealers' jargon, none of such terms are in conversation No. 240. All words utilized will, accordingly, be given their ordinary meanings. Detective Utz testified he believed that Ms. Garrison was advising Paul Hill she was out of the drug and was desperate.
Further, it should be noted Ms. Garrison worked at the same company as did defendant and cleaned company trucks. At the time of his arrest, defendant was questioned by KBI Special Agent Jeffery Brandau. Brandau testified that defendant related the following to him about conversation No. 240:
For the purposes of the appeal herein, we will assume that Ms. Garrison is, in the conversation, expressing a desire to obtain methamphetamine, a controlled substance under K.S.A. 65-4127a and -4127b.
We turn now to the issues raised herein.
*641 CONSPIRACY
For its first issue, the State contends there was sufficient evidence presented to permit it to proceed upon the conspiracy prong of the statute. K.S.A. 65-4141 incorporates the definition of conspiracy set forth in K.S.A. 21-3302. In State v. Roberts, 223 Kan. 49, 52, 574 P.2d 164 (1977), we summarized the proof required to sustain a conviction on a conspiracy charge as follows:
"Our conspiracy statute provides:
The State argues that conversation No. 240 establishes both the conspiracy and the requisite overt act. We do not agree.
In State v. Starks, 249 Kan. 516, 520, 820 P.2d 1243 (1991), we held:
*642 Drawing all inferences favorable to the prosecution from the evidence presented at the preliminary examination, there is a fatal shortfall. It takes some considerable stretching to find probable cause to believe that defendant is agreeing to supply a controlled substance to Ms. Garrison. Even if this hurdle is overcome, there is no evidence of an overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Black's Law Dictionary 1104 (6th ed. 1990) states in pertinent part:
....
Clearly, the magistrate did not err in finding the evidence was inadequate to bind defendant over on the conspiracy prong or theory. Like the district court, we are perplexed as to why, after such a finding, the conspiracy aspect remained in the charge. We find no error in the district court's striking the conspiracy allegation from the information as surplusage, under the circumstances herein.
FACILITATION
For its final issue, the State contends the district court erroneously construed K.S.A. 65-4141 in holding that a prosecution for facilitation required proof of a felony violation of K.S.A. 65-4127a and -4127b. It is undisputed that no evidence of such violation was offered or admitted.
The State argues that, inasmuch as prosecutions under K.S.A. 65-4141 which are based upon conspiracy or solicitation do not require proof of a completed underlying felony, then neither does a prosecution based upon facilitation.
In State v. Magness, 240 Kan. 719, 721, 732 P.2d 747 (1987), we held: "When a penal statute is questioned, the court is required to strictly construe the act in favor of the accused." See *643 State v. Trudell, 243 Kan. 29, 34, 755 P.2d 511 (1988); and State v. Cole, 238 Kan. 370, 372, 710 P.2d 25 (1985).
In State v. Carmichael, 240 Kan. 149, 159, 727 P.2d 918 (1986), we stated: "The rule of strict construction concerning penal statutes is subordinate to the rule that judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible to effectuate legislative design and the true intent of the legislature."
Black's Law Dictionary 591 (6th ed. 1990) states:
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 812 (1961) states:
21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (1988) provides:
In conjunction with this federal statute, the term "facilitating" has been construed on a number of occasions. The common thread is that the use of a communication facility made the commission of the underlying drug offense easier or less difficult or assists or aids in the offense. See U.S. v. Adler, 879 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1032 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied 457 U.S. 1136 (1982).
In support of its argument that proof of the commission of an underlying crime is unnecessary, the State cites United States v. Pierorazio, 578 F.2d 48 (3rd Cir.), cert denied 439 U.S. 981 (1978). In that case, the defendant argued that proof of an underlying inchoate crime, such as attempt or conspiracy to distribute *644 controlled substances or to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute, did not support a facilitation conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) and that proof of an underlying, actual, consummated substantive offense was necessary. This argument was rejected, with the court holding that proof of an underlying inchoate crime such as attempt or conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance was sufficient.
In the case before us, there was no probable cause to establish that any underlying controlled substance felony had been committed  inchoate or substantive. Reliance on Pierorazio is thus misplaced.
In U.S. v. Dotson, 895 F.2d 263 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 94 (1990), the defendant was charged with using a communication device to facilitate distribution of a controlled substance and possession of the substance. The court held that in order to find a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the underlying drug crime was actually committed.
In U.S. v. Johnstone, 856 F.2d 539 (3rd Cir.1988), the defendant was convicted of, inter alia, using a telephone to facilitate the distribution of methamphetamine. The court held:
We do not believe the difference in the wording between 21 U.S.C § 843(b) and K.S.A. 65-4141 requires a different result. Solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt are inchoate crimes.
Black's Law Dictionary 761 (6th ed. 1990) contains the following definition:
In our code these three offenses are set forth in article 33 of chapter 21 and are categorized as "anticipatory crimes." By their very nature, they are complete before the other crime or crimes with which they are concerned has or have been consummated. *645 Facilitation is not in this category. One cannot facilitate the commission of a crime which never occurs within the context of K.S.A. 65-4141. We conclude that the district court correctly held that in a prosecution under K.S.A. 65-4141 charging a defendant with having used a communication facility to facilitate a felony violation of K.S.A. 65-4127a and 65-4127b, the State is required to prove the commission of the underlying felony violation. Dismissal of the information, accordingly, was not erroneous.
Before concluding, we note the 1992 legislative amendments to K.S.A. 65-4141, effective July 1, 1993, set forth in L. 1992, ch. 298, § 76, as follows:
These amendments, inter alia, conform the offense to 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) by utilizing the same language: "committing or in causing or facilitating the commission of any ... felony."
The judgment is affirmed.