Com. v. Elansari, A.
2235 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Appellant Amro Ayman Elansari was convicted at a bench trial of multiple counts: eight PWID (marijuana), four possession, one drug paraphernalia, and three criminal use of a communication facility, based on three controlled buys from a confidential informant and evidence seized from his residence (marijuana, marijuana wax, $240, paraphernalia, and his cellphone).
- Transactions involved: roughly 0.5 oz + 0.5 oz/.4 g wax, and 27 g/.8 g wax supplied to the CI; search recovered ~31.9 g marijuana and 13.2 g wax and prerecorded bills.
- Sentenced to 95 days to 23.5 months imprisonment plus three years probation on November 30, 2015; Appellant proceeded pro se on appeal.
- Appellant raised five issues: (1–4) constitutional challenges to marijuana prohibitions (due process, strict scrutiny for religious/free exercise and medical necessity, rational basis), and (5) trial-court error denying evidentiary presentation and sufficiency/due process claims.
- Majority affirmed on procedural/briefing grounds; Judge Bowes concurred in the affirmance but dissented from the procedural dismissal of the constitutional claims and addressed their merits, rejecting them on substantive grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether marijuana prohibitions violate substantive due process / are fundamental rights | Use/possession/manufacture/distribution of marijuana is a fundamental liberty (religious/medical) and must get strict scrutiny | No fundamental right implicated; statutes presumptively constitutional | Not a fundamental right; rational-basis review applies; statute upheld |
| Whether Free Exercise / medical necessity trigger strict scrutiny | Religious use (Islam) and medical necessity (cancer treatment/anti-tumoral) require strict scrutiny | Free Exercise not properly invoked on this record; medical-necessity defense foreclosed by precedent | Free Exercise and medical necessity do not establish a fundamental right here; strict scrutiny denied |
| Whether statute fails strict scrutiny (compelling interest, narrow tailoring, least intrusive means) | Government lacks compelling interest and alternatives are less restrictive; other more-harmful substances legal | State has legitimate public health/safety interest justifying the ban | Not reached under strict scrutiny because claim failed; rational basis sufficient |
| Whether statute fails rational-basis review | Prohibition irrational because alcohol/tobacco are legal yet more harmful than marijuana | Legislature may rationally classify/regulate drugs; comparison to other substances irrelevant | Statute is rationally related to legitimate health/safety interest; upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (describing substantive-due-process protection for intimate choices and autonomy)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1965) (right to privacy against state regulation of contraceptives)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (invalidating criminal law regulating private sexual conduct as due-process violation)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (framework for identifying fundamental liberty interests under substantive due process)
- U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op., 532 U.S. 483 (U.S. 2001) (no medical-necessity defense for manufacture/distribution of marijuana under federal law)
- Commonwealth v. Waddell, 61 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (noting health risks of marijuana and upholding statutory classification)
- Smith v. Coyne, 722 A.2d 1022 (Pa. 1999) (rational-basis standard where no fundamental right implicated)
- Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (standard of review for pure questions of law)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (issues waived when not reasonably developed in appellate brief)