from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Richard G.
Blane II, Judge.
defendant appeals her conviction.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Blane, S.J. takes no part.
Hughlette appeals her conviction for possessing a taxable
substance without affixing a tax stamp, in violation of Iowa
Code section 453B.1, .3, and .12 (2014). Specifically,
Hughlette claims the State was required to prove she knew the
weight of the methamphetamine she possessed was seven grams
or more. Because we conclude the statute does not contain
such a requirement, we affirm her conviction.
Background Facts and Proceedings
evening of September 5, 2014, an officer with the Des Moines
Police Department (DMPD) was dispatched to East 14th Street
and Dean Avenue on reports of a fight involving a weapon. The
officer encountered a group of people, which included
Hughlette, in a parking lot approximately one block away.
After talking with the group, the officer decided to arrest
some of the individuals, including Hughlette, for disorderly
conduct. The officer then requested a female officer be sent
to the scene to assist in searching the individuals for
contraband. When the female officer arrived and searched
Hughlette, she discovered a clear plastic bag containing
methamphetamine tucked into her bra. The bag contained 23.78
grams of methamphetamine,  and it did not have a tax stamp on it.
October 10, 2014, the State charged Hughlette with one count
of possession of a controlled substance with intent to
deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7)
and one count of possessing a taxable substance without
affixing a tax stamp, in violation of Iowa Code section
453B.1, .3, and .12. At trial, Hughlette argued the State was
required to prove she knew the weight of methamphetamine she
possessed was seven or more grams. The district court
determined the statute did not contain such a requirement and
rejected Hughlette's argument. On September 2, 2015, the
jury found Hughlette guilty of possession of a controlled
substance-a lesser-included offense of possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver-and guilty of
possessing a taxable substance without affixing a tax stamp.
Hughlette appeals the tax-stamp conviction.
Standard of Review
question raised on appeal is one of statutory interpretation,
we review it for correction of errors at law. See State
v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa 2013)
("Questions of statutory interpretation . . . are
reviewed for correction of errors at law.").
argues the tax-stamp statute contains a knowledge element
that applies to the weight of the taxable substance as well
as the nature of the substance itself. The State responds
that the knowledge requirement only applies to the nature of