K.S.A. » Chapter 65
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 65-2519a (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

65-2519a.

History: L. 1959, ch. 254, § 4; L. 1970, ch. 258, § 2; L. 1971, ch. 211, § 3; Repealed, L. 1972, ch. 234, § 41; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Sentence under habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 21-107a) not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Coutcher, 198 Kan. 282, 283, 284, 424 P.2d 865.

2. Sentence hereunder upheld; contention that incarceration was cruel and unusual punishment because defendant suffered from terminal disease not sustained. State v. Mader, 205 Kan. 835, 836, 472 P.2d 236.

3. Stash of marijuana located on information of informant; conviction for possession upheld. State v. Grider, 206 Kan. 537, 538, 479 P.2d 818.

4. Conviction upheld; allegation in information as to exact quantity of drug possessed properly disregarded as surplusage. State v. Benson, 207 Kan. 453, 485 P.2d 1266.

5. Search with warrant for narcotics not unconstitutional. State v. Loudermilk, 208 Kan. 893, 494 P.2d 1174.

6. Conviction of possession of marijuana affirmed; conviction of sale reversed; defense of entrapment presents a question for the trier of facts. State v. Reichenberger, 209 Kan. 210, 211, 495 P.2d 919.

7. Applied; possession and sale of marijuana separate and distinct crimes; penalties reviewed. State v. Woods, 214 Kan. 739, 743, 746, 522 P.2d 967.

8. Conviction hereunder; arrest valid; constructive possession sufficient. State v. Walker, 217 Kan. 186, 535 P.2d 924.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1972–1972 · leading case: State v. Reichenberger, 495 P.2d 919 (Kan. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Reichenberger, 495 P.2d 919 (Kan. 1972). “" Each defendant was sentenced to a term of not more than seven years pursuant to K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 65-2519a. The defendants were then released on their own recognizance conditioned that their appeals be prosecuted in good faith and with diligence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.