The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court's denial of an expungement petition for a weapons charge, ruling that unlawful use of a weapon while possessing marijuana does not qualify as a 'marijuana offense' under Article XIV, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution.

In the case *C.S. v. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information Service*, decided July 22, 2025, the court addressed whether a weapons conviction related to marijuana possession could be expunged under Missouri's constitutional amendment on marijuana offenses.

The appellant, identified only as C.S., had pleaded guilty in 2020 to two criminal charges in Lafayette County circuit court. Count I was a class D felony for possession of a controlled substance, specifically possessing more than 35 grams of marijuana in violation of Section 579.015. Count II was a class E felony for unlawful use of a weapon, defined as 'possessing a firearm while knowingly in possession of a controlled substance' under Section 571.030.1(11).

The circuit court sentenced C.S. to seven years' imprisonment for the drug charge and four years' imprisonment for the weapons charge, but suspended execution of both sentences. However, C.S.'s probation was revoked in 2021, and he has remained incarcerated since then.

C.S.'s legal challenge arose following the approval of Amendment 3 by Missouri voters on Nov. 8, 2022. The constitutional amendment included an expungement provision allowing incarcerated individuals serving sentences for marijuana offenses that are misdemeanors, class E felonies, or class D felonies involving possession of three pounds or less of marijuana to seek expungement.

C.S. filed an amended petition seeking expungement of his weapons conviction, arguing it should qualify under the constitutional provision. The Lafayette County circuit court, presided over by Judge Dennis A. Rolf, denied the petition.

The Missouri Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the offense of unlawful use of a weapon is not a 'marijuana offense' within the meaning of Article XIV, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution, even when the underlying facts involve marijuana possession.

The ruling establishes important boundaries for Missouri's constitutional expungement provisions related to marijuana. While the amendment allows expungement for certain marijuana possession charges, the court determined that separate criminal charges involving weapons, even when connected to marijuana possession, do not fall within the constitutional definition of 'marijuana offense.'

This distinction is significant for understanding how Missouri courts interpret the scope of constitutional amendments regarding drug offense expungements. The court's analysis focused on the specific language of the constitutional provision, which refers to 'marijuana offense' rather than any offense connected to or involving marijuana.

The case reflects ongoing legal developments following Missouri's Amendment 3, which expanded rights for individuals with marijuana-related convictions. However, the Supreme Court's decision makes clear that not all charges related to marijuana incidents qualify for constitutional expungement protections.

For C.S., the ruling means his weapons conviction will remain on his record despite the marijuana-related context of the charge. The court's interpretation suggests that individuals with similar dual charges involving both marijuana possession and weapons violations would need to pursue expungement through other legal avenues for the weapons components of their cases.

The decision also provides guidance for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and courts handling expungement petitions under Missouri's constitutional amendments. The ruling clarifies that courts must examine the specific nature of each charge rather than broadly applying expungement provisions to all offenses arising from marijuana-related incidents.

Legal practitioners will likely reference this decision when advising clients about expungement eligibility under Missouri's constitutional provisions. The case demonstrates the importance of precise legal analysis when determining which offenses qualify for constitutional protections.

The Missouri Supreme Court's unanimous decision reinforces traditional principles of statutory and constitutional interpretation, requiring courts to apply expungement provisions narrowly to the specific offenses contemplated by the constitutional text.

This ruling may influence future cases where individuals seek expungement for multiple charges arising from single incidents involving marijuana. The court's analysis suggests that each charge must be evaluated independently to determine constitutional expungement eligibility.

The case represents one of the early interpretive decisions following Missouri's Amendment 3, providing important precedent for lower courts handling similar expungement petitions involving multiple charges related to marijuana incidents.