337 P.3d 568
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Petitioners Dobson and Anderson were charged in municipal court with A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1) (impaired driving) and (A)(3) (driving with any drug or its metabolite in the body); they stipulated to the record and were convicted of (A)(3).
- Municipal court precluded evidence that petitioners held medical marijuana registry cards (Dobson: Oregon card treated as equivalent; Anderson: Arizona card) and denied motions to present AMMA-related evidence.
- Superior court affirmed, holding (1) § 28-1381(D)’s affirmative defense for drugs used “as prescribed” does not cover medical marijuana authorized by a AMMA “written certification,” and (2) AMMA provisions § 36-2802(D) and § 36-2811(B)(1) do not immunize defendants from (A)(3) charges.
- Petitioners sought special action review; this court accepted jurisdiction as the issue is one of first impression and statewide importance.
- The court reviewed statutory construction de novo and evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; it denied relief and affirmed exclusion of the registry-card evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 28-1381(D) (not guilty if using a drug “as prescribed”) provides an affirmative defense to an (A)(3) charge for medical marijuana authorized by an AMMA "written certification" | "Written certification" under AMMA equals use “as prescribed” and thus § 28-1381(D) applies | "As prescribed" means use of prescription drugs per prescription law; AMMA uses "written certification," not a prescription, and marijuana is a Schedule I drug that cannot be prescribed | Held: § 28-1381(D) does not apply to medical marijuana use under AMMA; registry cards properly excluded |
| Whether A.R.S. § 36-2802(D) (AMMA: registered patients not considered under the influence solely due to metabolites) bars (A)(3) prosecutions | § 36-2802(D) prevents penalizing registered patients for metabolite presence; thus it bars (A)(3) convictions based on metabolites | (A)(3) prohibits driving with any drug or metabolite in the body regardless of impairment; § 36-2802(D) addresses "under the influence," not the presence rule of (A)(3) | Held: § 36-2802(D) does not apply to (A)(3) prosecutions; exclusion proper |
| Whether A.R.S. § 36-2811(B)(1) (registered patients not subject to arrest/prosecution for medical use within allowable amount) provides immunity from (A)(3) | Medical use authorized by AMMA (within allowable amount) makes patient immune from prosecution for conduct related to marijuana, including (A)(3) | § 36-2811(B)(1) protects use/possession for authorized medical use, not operation of a vehicle with drug/metabolite present; (A)(3) prosecutes driving with drug/metabolite, not mere possession/use | Held: § 36-2811(B)(1) does not bar (A)(3) prosecutions; convictions stand |
| Appropriate jurisdiction to hear challenge to municipal-court evidentiary rulings | Petitioners: no adequate appellate remedy from municipal court; issue of statewide importance warrants special action | State did not contest appropriateness of special action jurisdiction | Held: Special action jurisdiction accepted due to lack of direct appeal and recurring statewide importance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152 (admissibility rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Superior Court, 128 Ariz. 583 (standard for reviewing evidentiary exclusions)
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 234 Ariz. 343 (A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3) prohibits driving with any drug or impairing metabolite regardless of impairment)
- State v. Bayardi, 230 Ariz. 195 (interpretation of § 28-1381(D) and "as prescribed" language)
- Vicari v. Lake Havasu City, 222 Ariz. 218 (use of secondary rules of statutory construction when statute ambiguous)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance and cannot be dispensed under a federal prescription)