History:
L. 1957, ch. 339, § 2; L. 1970, ch. 259, § 2; Repealed, L. 1972, ch. 234, § 41; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Evidence held sufficient to establish violation of statute. State v. McCollum, 209 Kan. 498, 499, 496 P.2d 1381.
2. Conviction hereunder reversed; defenses of entrapment and procuring agent are not inconsistent. State v. Fitzgibbon, 211 Kan. 553, 554, 507 P.2d 313.
3. Appeal from conviction hereunder; evidence held sufficient to warrant instruction to jury on defense of entrapment. State v. Farmer, 212 Kan. 163, 510 P.2d 180.
4. Conviction hereunder upheld; state need not prove defendant was not an exempt person hereunder. State v. Brothers, 212 Kan. 187, 189, 510 P.2d 608.
5. Conviction hereunder affirmed; burden on defendant to show exception to statute as defense; proper foundation for admission of drug exhibit considered. State v. White, 213 Kan. 276, 279, 515 P.2d 1081.
6. Conviction hereunder; record examined; no error. State v. Carter, 214 Kan. 533, 534, 535, 521 P.2d 294.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1972–2001 · leading case: State v. Gunn, 26 P.3d 710 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Gunn, 26 P.3d 710 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 65-2602(1) made unlawful the delivery of drugs unless “delivered by a practitioner in good faith and in the course of his profession practice only.”
State v. Davis, 874 P.2d 1156 (Kan. 1994). “” In White , we said “The prohibited conduct is set forth in the phrase 'It shall be unlawful (1) To deliver any drugs .”
State v. McCollum, 496 P.2d 1381 (Kan. 1972). “: The appellant, Danny McCollum, was convicted by a jury of selling, offering for sale, or having in his possession with the intent to sell d-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in violation of K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 65-2602 ( 8). The appellant was 18 years of age and a senior at…”
K.S.A. § 65-2602(1): 2 cases
State v. Gunn, 26 P.3d 710 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 65-2602(1) made unlawful the delivery of drugs unless “delivered by a practitioner in good faith and in the course of his profession practice only.”
State v. Davis, 874 P.2d 1156 (Kan. 1994). “” In White , we said “The prohibited conduct is set forth in the phrase 'It shall be unlawful (1) To deliver any drugs .”
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.