Court Opinion

ID: 9781377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:35:05.670158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:25.883317
License: Public Domain

Beier, J.,
concurring: I concur in the result and most of the reasoning of the opinion written for the court by Justice Allegrucci. I write separately only because I depart from the court’s treatment of Stevens’ multiple acts claim.
This is not a multiple acts case, and thus the court’s discussion of multiple acts decisions is unnecessary.
In a multiple acts case, the evidence will support more than one count of the same crime, but the State charges only one count of the crime. See State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289, 875 P.2d 242 (1994). In such a situation, a defendant may, under certain circumstances, successfully argue on appeal that the jury was confused and unanimity on guilt lacking. See State v. Hill, 271 Kan. 929, 26 P.3d 1267 (2001).
Here, evidence of two different crimes — possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use it in manufacturing a controlled substance, a severity level 4 felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia for introducing a controlled substance into the human body, a misdemeanor — was introduced. However, Stevens was not charged with the misdemeanor. In addition, the prosecution made clear which items supported its possession of paraphernalia felony charge. Nothing further was needed to protect Stevens’ entitlement to jury unanimity.