273 A.3d 1163
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background:
- On May 25, 2019 Trooper stopped River Garrett Stone for speeding, smelled burnt marijuana, and observed bloodshot eyes; Stone handed the trooper a bag of marijuana and later tested positive for THC/metabolites in blood.
- Stone held a Pennsylvania medical marijuana patient certification but did not have his card at the stop; he presented a patient certificate at a pretrial hearing.
- The Commonwealth charged Stone under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1) for driving with any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance (marijuana) and for metabolites; Stone moved to dismiss counts arguing the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) means marijuana is not a Schedule I substance for DUI purposes.
- The trial court denied the omnibus motion but, on the morning of trial, accepted a proposed jury instruction stating that medical marijuana (and its metabolites) is not a Schedule I controlled substance and that the Commonwealth must prove the marijuana in Stone’s blood was non-medical; the Commonwealth timely appealed the interlocutory ruling.
- The Superior Court reviewed the legal accuracy of the instruction de novo and held the trial court erred: under current Pennsylvania law marijuana remains a Schedule I substance and the Commonwealth need not prove the marijuana came from non-medical sources. Case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by allowing a jury instruction that medical marijuana is not a Schedule I controlled substance and requiring the Commonwealth to prove the marijuana was non-medical | Commonwealth: instruction misstates law; marijuana (medical or non-medical) remains a Schedule I substance under PA law, so Commonwealth need not prove source | Stone: MMA authorizes medical use and Jezzi supports distinguishing medical marijuana; requiring source protects lawful patients from perpetual DUI exposure | Held: Trial court erred; instruction misstates law. Marijuana remains Schedule I under current PA law; Commonwealth need not prove marijuana was non-medical |
| Whether the MMA removed marijuana from Pennsylvania’s Schedule I list or created a conflict with the federal CSA | Commonwealth: Legislature has not removed marijuana from state Schedule I; any federal-state conflict need not be resolved because state list still lists marijuana | Stone: MMA’s authorization and prior decisions interpreted to limit criminal exposure for medical users | Held: Superior Court concluded MMA has not removed marijuana from state Schedule I; did not reach federal-conflict question because change has not occurred |
| Whether a defendant with a medical marijuana card can be convicted under § 3802(d)(1) for any detectable amount (i.e., strict-liability question) | Commonwealth: § 3802(d)(1) prohibits driving with any Schedule I substance in blood regardless of authorization | Stone: Applying § 3802(d)(1) to authorized medical users would criminalize lawful patients and is contrary to MMA purpose | Held: Court declined to resolve this merits/strict-liability issue in the interlocutory appeal; left to trial court and ultimate adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25 (Pa. 2021) (MMA means marijuana no longer per se illegal under CSA and MMA takes precedence to the extent of conflict)
- Commonwealth v. Jezzi, 208 A.3d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2019) (describes MMA as a limited, temporary program to access medical marijuana and notes marijuana remains illegal under the CSA)
- Commonwealth v. Handley, 213 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2019) (observes MMA anticipates removal from Schedule I but legislature has not acted)
- Commonwealth v. Grooms, 247 A.3d 31 (Pa. Super. 2021) (noting smoking or vaping marijuana while driving remains illegal despite MMA)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 621 A.2d 1009 (Pa. Super. 1993) (accuracy of jury instructions as to statutory elements is a question of law)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 260 A.3d 208 (Pa. Super. 2021) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1989) (whether a jury instruction misstated statutory elements is a legal question reviewed de novo)