Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JOHN J. KISNER, JR., judge.
1. Generally, issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. Two exceptions to this rule are where the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case and where consideration of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or prevent the denial of fundamental rights.
2. Whether the knife in this case was a pocket knife under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 21-4201(a)(2) is an issue of statutory interpretation over which appellate courts have unlimited review.
3. The primary rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.
4. Generally, criminal statutes must be construed in favor of the accused, but this rule is subordinate to the rule that judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible to effect legislative design and intent.
5. A knife with a 3.5-inch straight, sharp, pointed serrated blade that is sheathed in a comb but does not fold into the comb and which has a handle that also serves as the handle for the comb is not a pocket knife under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 21-4201(a)(2).
6. In reviewing a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute, we presume the statute is constitutional and resolve all doubts in favor of the statute's validity. We first determine whether the statute conveys a sufficiently definite warning of the proscribed conduct considering common understanding and practice, and, second, we determine whether the statute guards against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
7. A dangerous knife under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 21-4201(a)(2) is a knife that likely will produce serious injury or death when used as a weapon. The term is not unconstitutionally vague.
8. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in determining the knife in question was a dangerous knife.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bukaty, J.
Before BUSER, P.J., BUKATY, S.J., and KNUDSON, S.J.
David C. Moore was convicted of an aggravated weapons violation under K.S.A. 21-4202 and K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 21-4201(a)(2) for carrying a "dangerous knife" concealed on his person. In this direct appeal, he raises three alternative issues. He first argues the knife in question was a "pocket knife" under the statute and not a prohibited item. He next urges that the term "dangerous knife" is unconstitutionally vague. Finally, he contends the district court erred in determining the knife was dangerous. We find against Moore on all issues and affirm.
Wichita police stopped Moore for a traffic infraction and arrested him for a suspended driver's license and outstanding warrants. Officers then searched Moore and found on his person an item in his back left pocket that was both a hair comb and a knife with a 3.5-inch serrated blade. The State specifically charged Moore with the aggravated weapons violation for ...