Title: State v. Hagen
Citation: 242 Kan. 707, 750 P.2d 403
Docket Number: 60,794
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: February 19, 1988

242 Kan. 707 (1988)
750 P.2d 403
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
ROBERT HAGEN, Appellee.
No. 60,794

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed February 19, 1988.
Gerald E. Wells, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and James E. Flory, district attorney, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Patricia H. Jenkins, of Wichita, 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 State from the district court's dismissal of a complaint filed against defendant Robert Hagen alleging obstruction of official duty of a police officer pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3808.
A Lawrence police officer was directing traffic on Saturday, September 27, 1986, in connection with heightened traffic occasioned by the annual Band Day of the University of Kansas. Robert Hagen allegedly stopped his automobile near to the officer and went over and argued with the officer, refused to obey the officer's orders, and generally interfered with the officer's ability to perform his direction of traffic. Hagen was charged with violation of K.S.A. 21-3808, which provides:
The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that K.S.A. 21-3808 requires an underlying felony, misdemeanor, or civil case in order to classify the offense. Inasmuch as no such *708 underlying civil or criminal case was alleged under the facts herein, the district court concluded the complaint must be dismissed.
The first portion of the statute which sets forth the offense would appear to be applicable to the facts alleged herein. However, the alleged facts do not permit classification of the charge into either of the two penalty classifications set forth in the statute as there is no underlying felony, misdemeanor, or civil case. Were defendant to be convicted under the statute, what penalty or classification would attach?
K.S.A. 21-4502 provides in part:
....
Nothing in K.S.A. 21-3808 states that violation thereof is ever anything but a class E felony or a class A misdemeanor. There is no crime in the statute which has been declared to be a misdemeanor for which no class has been specified. Hence, the district court could not use K.S.A. 21-4502(1)(d) to classify the alleged offense herein as a class C misdemeanor.
This conclusion is supported by the history of K.S.A. 21-3808 which was enacted in 1969 as a consolidation of two prior statutes, K.S.A. 21-717 (Corrick) and K.S.A. 21-718 (Corrick), which provided:
Clearly, the alleged conduct herein does not fall within the purview of either of the prior statutes which were consolidated into K.S.A. 21-3808.
The legislature has provided a specific statute for the alleged conduct herein. It is K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 8-1503, which provides:
Pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4502(1)(d) violation of K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 8-1503 is a class C misdemeanor.
The State did not attempt to amend the complaint herein to allege a violation of K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 8-1503. We must conclude the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint.
The judgment is affirmed.