People Of Mi V Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess, 167895

Background

Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess pleaded guilty to third-degree retail fraud and received 12 months' HYTA probation with a marijuana-use ban. 1
After two positive marijuana tests and probation-violation proceedings, Hess moved to amend probation to permit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use and to vacate/dismiss the violations. 2
The district court rejected Hess's MRTMA argument, revoked HYTA status, and imposed 10 days in jail; the circuit court and Court of Appeals affirmed. 3
The Court of Appeals held probation courts could prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use because probationers may not violate federal law and marijuana remained illegal under the CSA. 4
The Supreme Court granted leave and reversed, holding probation courts may not bar MRTMA-compliant marijuana use solely because it violates federal law. 5
The Court remanded for reconsideration of Hess's motion to amend probation and to vacate and dismiss the violations. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the CSA preempt the MRTMA's immunity for compliant marijuana use? 7	Hess: no positive conflict; MRTMA gives only state-law immunity.	People: federal marijuana ban controls and preempts MRTMA.	No; the CSA does not preempt MRTMA-compliant use immunity. 8
Is the probation act inconsistent with the MRTMA when it incorporates federal marijuana prohibitions? 9	Hess: MRTMA controls over inconsistent state laws.	People: probationers must obey federal law, so marijuana may be banned.	Yes, to that extent the MRTMA controls over the probation act. 10
May a court prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use solely because it violates federal law? 11	Hess: no; such a condition conflicts with MRTMA.	People: yes; probation conditions may bar federally illegal conduct.	No; courts may not impose that prohibition on that basis alone. 12

Key Cases Cited

Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (Mich. 2014) (CSA does not preempt Michigan medical-marijuana immunity 13)
People v Zujko, 282 Mich App 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for probation conditions 14)
People v Breeding, 284 Mich App 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (probation revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion 15)
People v Robinson, Mich (Mich. 2026) (abuse of discretion includes legal error 16)
People v Christian, 510 Mich 52 (Mich. 2022) (abuse of discretion standard includes decisions outside principled outcomes 17)
People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (Mich. 2012) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo 18)
People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192 (Mich. 2015) (voter-initiated statutes are interpreted by electors' intent and plain language 19)
Michigan v McQueen, 493 Mich 135 (Mich. 2013) (plain language is the most reliable evidence of voter intent 20)
Schmidt v Department of Education, 441 Mich 236 (Mich. 1992) (judicial restraint in construing voter-enacted laws 21)
International Business Machines Corp v Department of Treasury, 496 Mich 642 (Mich. 2014) (statutes on the same subject are read as one system 22)
Rathbun v Michigan, 284 Mich 521 (Mich. 1938) (same-subject statutes are construed together 23)
People v Houston, 237 Mich App 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (probation conditions must be lawfully related to rehabilitation 24)
People v Gonyo, 173 Mich App 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988) (probation conditions must be logically related to rehabilitation 25)
People v Graber, 128 Mich App 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (upheld tailored probation restriction tied to defendant's risks 26)
People v Koon, 494 Mich 1 (Mich. 2013) (MMMA controls when inconsistent with another state law 27)
People v Thue, 336 Mich App 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021) (probation restrictions and revocation conflicted with MMMA 28)