[3, 4] We exercise unlimited review over double-jeopardy and multiplicity challenges. State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422, 435, 313 P.3d 814 (2013). Likewise, we exercise unlimited review over any questions of statutory interpretation necessary to resolve these challenges.

Like the United States Constitution, the Kansas Constitution also prohibits a criminal defendant from being " ‘twice put in jeopardy,’ " and the Kansas Supreme Court has interpreted the Kansas and federal double jeopardy provisions as providing a criminal defendant with the same protections. State v. Hensley , 298 Kan. 422, 435, 313 P.3d 814 (2013) ; see U.S. Const. amend. V ; Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 10. A defendant's argument under any of the three categories of protection raises a question of law over which this court has unlimited review.

A tip's probative value is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, including the informant's basis of knowledge, i.e., the means by which the informant acquired the information, and the informant's veracity, i.e., evidence of the informant's credibility and reliability. State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422, 431, 313 P.3d 814 (2013). And while a deficiency on one prong can be compensated for by a strong showing on the other, 298 Kan. at 431, 313 P.3d 814, in this instance the basis of knowledge and veracity are both largely unknown.

We conclude that Gilmore is raising a multiplicity argument, although he does not use that term. Multiplicity is an aspect of the constitutional protections against double jeopardy, State v. Moody, 35 Kan.App.2d 547, 574–75, 132 P.3d 985, rev. denied 282 Kan. 794 (2006), protections which Kansas has codified in the statute Gilmore cites. See K.S.A.2014 Supp. 21–5109 ; State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422, 435–36, 313 P.3d 814 (2013) ; Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112, 120–24, 200 P.3d 1236 (2009). “Our review of double jeopardy and multiplicity challenges under these provisions is unlimited.”

Abrogated on other grounds, State v. Hensley, 313 F.3d 814 (Kan. 2013). The Hensley decision abrogated the Berberich court's holding that a defendant could be convicted of both possession of methamphetamine and failure to have a tax stamp for the methamphetamine.

K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5109(b) ("Upon prosecution for a crime, the defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or a lesser included crime, but not both."); State v. Hensley , 298 Kan. 422, 436, 313 P.3d 814 (2013) ("[B]oth K.S.A. 21-3107 [now K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5109 ] and the Double Jeopardy Clauses require reversal of both the conviction and sentence if the legislature did not intend multiple punishments."); see U.S. Const. amend. V ; Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 10. The two are always mutually exclusive.

Love seizes on this broad proposition, arguing: "Allowing juries, rather than the State or district court, to decide whether a defendant is guilty of the charged crime or a lesser-included offense was a common law right as it existed when the Kansas Constitution came into existence." He then quotes the history of lesser included offenses, as recited by this court in State v. Berberich , 248 Kan. 854, 811 P.2d 1192 (1991) (noting early Kansas statutes codified traditional common-law rule—i.e. , the "elements test"—on instructing jury on lesser included crimes), abrogated on other grounds byState v. Hensley , 298 Kan. 422, 313 P.3d 814 (2013). Finally, he concludes: "Failure to give a legally and factually supported lesser-included offense [instruction] violates the state constitutional right to have a jury decide guilt as to each and every element."

Rights, § 10; see also State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422, 435-38, 313 P.3d 814 (2013) (finding that possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with no tax stamp violate the Double Jeopardy Clauses). "[M]ultiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of a complaint or information." State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 244, 200 P.3d 22 (2009).

[Citation omitted.]" State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422, 438, 313 P.3d 814 (2013).

Reynolds cites State v. Hensley, 298 Kan. 422, 313 P.3d 814 (2013), in support of his argument that the two charges at issue are multiplicitous. Michael Hensley was convicted of possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana without a tax stamp.