Cannibis
KANSAS CITY — A Missouri state appeals court has upheld a Jackson Circuit Court ruling that denied a woman’s request for expungement of marijuana-related records under a constitutional provision but granted her statutory expungement under state law.
In its decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District affirmed that K.D.W.’s municipal ordinance violation did not qualify as a “misdemeanor marijuana offense,” the Sept. 9 decision states.
Judge Thomas N. Chapman authored the opinion, with Presiding Judge Gary D. Witt and Special Judge Zel M. Fischer concurring. The judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court was affirmed in full.
The case stems from a Dec. 18, 2004, arrest in which K.D.W. was taken into custody by the Lee’s Summit Police Department and charged with possession of marijuana under a local ordinance, section 17-240 of the Lee’s Summit Code.
That charge was later amended to defective equipment, to which she pled guilty and paid a fine. Records of her arrest and amended charge were reported to the central repository and included in her criminal history.
In 2022, Missouri voters adopted article XIV, section 2 of the state constitution, legalizing marijuana for adults over 21 and establishing processes for expungement of certain marijuana-related offenses.
The provision requires circuit courts to expunge criminal history records of misdemeanor marijuana offenses and certain other marijuana-related offenses that would no longer constitute crimes.
On July 20, 2023, K.D.W. filed a two-count petition for expungement. Count I sought relief under the constitutional amendment, while Count II pursued statutory expungement under section 610.140.
She argued that her arrest and charge were “criminal history records” of misdemeanor marijuana offenses and therefore subject to automatic expungement under the constitutional provision.
The trial court held a hearing on Nov. 1, 2023, during which K.D.W.’s criminal history record was admitted without objection. Evidence included records of her arrest, charge, and disposition, along with certified copies of the Lee’s Summit Code ordinances and a municipal court record from February 2005.
On Jan. 18, 2024, the circuit court issued a judgment denying expungement under the constitutional amendment but granting statutory expungement.
The trial court concluded that K.D.W.’s arrest and charge did not qualify as misdemeanor marijuana offenses because municipal ordinance violations are civil in nature, not criminal misdemeanors under Missouri law.
The court further determined that she was never convicted or sentenced for marijuana possession and that article XIV provided no authority to expunge a marijuana-related arrest not followed by conviction.
On appeal, K.D.W. argued three points.
First, she contended that her arrest and charge records should be considered misdemeanor marijuana offenses under the constitutional provision.
The appellate court disagreed, citing the ordinary meaning of “misdemeanor” as a crime less serious than a felony and emphasizing that municipal ordinance violations are not classified as misdemeanors under the Revised Criminal Code.
The court noted that article XIV itself distinguishes between civil infractions and misdemeanors, supporting the interpretation that ordinance violations do not fall under the constitutional expungement requirement.
Her second argument repeated the claim that her records qualified under the first sentence of article XIV, section 2.10(8)(a). The appellate court again rejected the assertion, affirming the trial court’s reasoning.
In her third point, K.D.W. argued that she was eligible under the second sentence of the same section, which requires expungement for individuals who have completed sentences for marijuana offenses that are no longer crimes.
The court found that this did not apply to her because she was never convicted of marijuana possession and thus had no completed sentence for such an offense.
The appellate court noted that constitutional interpretation requires giving effect to the words as Missouri voters would have understood them when adopting the amendment.
It also noted that courts cannot add language or expand the meaning of provisions beyond what was intended.
Ultimately, the judges concluded that the trial court had correctly applied the law and that the denial of constitutional expungement was proper.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD86993