79-5208.
Same; tax and criminal penalties for violation of act.
Any dealer violating this act is subject to a penalty of 100% of the tax in addition to the tax imposed by K.S.A. 79-5202 and amendments thereto. In addition to the tax penalty imposed, a dealer distributing or possessing marijuana or controlled substances without affixing the appropriate stamps, labels or other indicia is guilty of a severity level 10 felony.
History:
L. 1987, ch. 366, § 8; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 83; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited; search and seizure with warrant based on observations of state park custodian; private citizen not agent of state examined. State v. Smith, 243 Kan. 715, 717, 763 P.2d 632 (1988).
2. Constitutionality of act and uses of information obtained thereunder determined. State v. Durrant, 244 Kan. 522, 527, 769 P.2d 1174 (1989).
3. Possession of controlled substance without affixing stamps is distinct from mere possession (K.S.A. 65-4127b); neither is included offense of other. State v. Berberich, 248 Kan. 854, 862, 811 P.2d 1192 (1991).
4. Whether Kansas department of revenue is bound by state's plea bargain regarding drug stamp tax owed examined. Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 852, 853, 863 P.2d 364 (1993).
5. Admissibility of bloodhound tracking evidence examined. State v. Wainwright, 18 Kan. App. 2d 449, 450, 856 P.2d 163 (1993).
6. Whether judge erred by using inappropriate standard in reviewing probable cause to hold defendant examined. State v. Bockert, 257 Kan. 488, 491, 893 P.2d 832 (1995).
7. Kansas drug tax act does not impose a criminal penalty for double jeopardy purposes. State v. Riley, 259 Kan. 774, 792, 915 P.2d 774 (1996).
8. Taxpayer must have possession of controlled substance for sufficient time to affix stamp to incur tax liability under KDTA (K.S.A. 79-5201 et seq.). In re Burrell, 22 Kan. App. 2d 109, 114, 116, 912 P.2d 187 (1996).
9. Court must instruct defendant was in possession of controlled substance sufficient time to affix tax stamps. State v. Edwards, 27 Kan. App. 2d 754, 9 P.3d 568 (2000).
10. Habeas corpus relief denied where state supreme court ruled charges did not constitute double jeopardy. Jensen v. Bouker, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1168 (2000).
11. Charged hereunder in case involving suppression of evidence when no Miranda warnings given. State v. Schultz, 289 Kan. 334, 212 P.3d 150 (2009).
12. Search of vehicle upheld; case law on vehicle searches discussed and applied. State v. Davison, 41 Kan. App. 2d 140, 202 P.3d 44 (2009).
13. Conviction hereunder upheld; traffic stop and smell of marijuana provided probable cause for search. State v. Preston, 41 Kan. App. 2d 981, 207 P.3d 1081 (2009).
14. Evidence of violation suppressed; trooper's suspicion of loose ladder dispelled, detention thereafter unlawful. State v. Diaz-Ruiz, 42 Kan. App. 2d 325, 211 P.3d 836 (2009).
15. Defendant's possession of both marijuana and methamphetamine without the appropriate drug tax stamps affixed, at the same time and location and without any proof that the drugs were acquired at different times, constitutes a single crime that should not have been charged in two counts. State v. Pribble, 304 Kan. 824, 831, 375 P.3d 966 (2016).
State v. Pribble, 375 P.3d 966 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 40דK.S.A. 79-5208 makes it a crime for a drug dealer, as defined in K.”
State v. Schoonover, 133 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 3דCurry similarly held: “Evidence that a defendant had actual possession of a controlled substance or possession with sufficient control to permit the immediate affixing of drug tax stamps is sufficient to support a conviction under K.S.A. 79-5208.” 29 Kan. App. 2d 392 , Syl.”
State v. Martin, 544 P.3d 820 (Kan. 2024). · cites it 7ד79-5204(a) and K.S.A. 79-5208. Under K.S.A. 79-5204(a), "[n]o dealer may possess any .”
State v. Berberich, 811 P.2d 1192 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 5ד65-4127b(a)(3); and (4) possession of methamphetamine without affixing the official Kansas drug tax stamp, K.S.A. 79-5208. The trial court denied *855 Berberich’s motion to dismiss the charge of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell as an included offense of the…”
State v. Schooler, 419 P.3d 1164 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2ד21-5705(a) (possession with intent to distribute); K.S.A. 79-5208 (dealer possessing marijuana without tax stamp).”
Dickerson v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 863 P.2d 364 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 4ד79-5202 and a fine of $350 pursuant to K.S.A. 79-5208. Dickerson subsequently paid these amounts in full.”
State v. Davison, 202 P.3d 44 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6ד65-4161; one count of possession of methamphetamine without *47 drug tax stamps, in violation of K.S.A. 79-5208; one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of K.”
State v. Keel, 357 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2015). “21-4213 (unlawful failure to report a wound is *576 a “class C misdemeanor”); K.S.A. 79-5208 (failure to affix drug tax stamp is a “severity level 10 felony”).”
Simpson v. Bouker, 249 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3ד)) and (2) possession of marijuana without affixing the appropriate tax stamps in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-5208 . The state district court dismissed the possession with intent to sell charge on double jeopardy grounds.”
State v. Reason, 951 P.2d 538 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 2ד65-4160(a), a drug severity level 4 felony; possession of cocaine without a tax stamp affixed, K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 79-5208, a nondrug severity level 10 felony; possession of marijuana with intent to sell, K.”
State v. Moore, 154 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2007). “79-5204(a) and K.S.A. 79-5208. A later search revealed a total of 55 pounds of marijuana hidden in the vehicle.”
State v. Diaz-Ruiz, 211 P.3d 836 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2ד79-5204(a) and K.S.A. 79-5208. Prior to trial, both defendants moved to suppress evidence seized in the search, claiming (1) the initial traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) the stop lasted longer than necessary to effectuate its purpose; (3) they did not…”
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.