Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa
236 Ariz. 185
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- AMMA allows qualified patients to use marijuana; the MDMA prohibits DUI with any drug/metabolite in body under ARS 28-1381(A)(3).
- Travis Darrah, an authorized medical marijuana user, tested with 4.0 ng/ml THC after arrest for DUI, with counts under (A)(1) and (A)(3).
- Municipal court denied Darrah’s request to dismiss (A)(3) and barred evidence of medical card; the jury acquitted on (A)(1) but convicted on (A)(3).
- Superior Court affirmed; Darrah sought special action review because no direct appeal; this court accepted jurisdiction.
- Darrah contends AMMA §36-2802(D) immunizes authorized users from (A)(3) prosecutions; State argues no such immunity exists.
- Harris holding: non-impairing metabolite not a basis for (A)(3); AMMA does not bar prosecution under (A)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMMA immunizes authorized patients from §28-1381(A)(3) prosecutions | Darrah argues §36-2802(D) bars (A)(3) prosecutions for authorized users | Arizona should permit (A)(3) prosecution regardless of AMMA carve-out | No immunity; (A)(3) prosecutions allowed |
| Whether §36-2802(D) carve-out applies to authorized users | Carve-out should immunize if THC/metabolite concentration is insufficient to cause impairment | Carve-out not reaching (A)(3) if impairment possible at detected levels | Carve-out does not preclude conviction absent insufficient impairment evidence |
| Role of Harris on whether authorized users can be convicted under (A)(3) | Harris controls to the extent it recognizes impairment-based limits for non-authorized users | Harris does not squarely apply carve-out to authorized users | Harris governs; AMMA does not bar (A)(3) convictions for authorized users |
| Whether 4.0 ng/ml THC shows impairment given lack of consensus | Evidence may show impairment at or near 4 ng/ml | No consensus; 4.0 ng/ml not conclusively impairing | Evidence insufficient to establish impairment; carve-out not applicable; but result focused on statutory interpretation |
| Whether Darrah was entitled to an affirmative defense under §28-1381(D) | Argument pressed that physician-prescribed use could be defense | Certification from non-licensed practitioner fails §28-1381(D) requirements | Affirmative defense not applicable; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey, 308 P.3d 1152 (Ariz. 2013) (interpret measure's intent using natural, ordinary meaning)
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 322 P.3d 160 (Ariz. 2014) (non-impairing metabolite cannot support (A)(3) conviction; AMMA remains legal framework)
- Harris, 234 Ariz. 343, 322 P.3d 160 (Ariz. 2014) (non-impairing metabolite not a proscribed drug under (A)(3); AMMA does not bar all prosecutions)