People of Michigan v. Alan Lawrence Witt
332940
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Alan Witt worked at a medical marijuana dispensary and sold about 4.5 grams of marijuana plus a brownie to Arnold Czarnecki, who presented a valid Michigan medical marijuana registry card but was a confidential informant.
- Defendant testified he dispensed marijuana based on what patients requested (never more than 2.5 ounces) and relied on patients’ representations about need; he did not inquire into patients’ diagnoses or usual daily usage.
- Czarnecki had obtained a registry card via a remote Skype consult in 2014, had not used marijuana regularly after an initial month, but still possessed a valid card when he purchased from Witt.
- Trial court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing on whether Witt could present an affirmative § 8 defense under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) and found a prima facie showing for element (1) but not for elements (2) or (3); it barred the § 8 defense at trial.
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of delivering/manufacturing marijuana, sentenced to 180 days in jail and 18 months’ probation; he appealed arguing the trial court erred in denying the § 8 defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant made a prima facie showing of § 8(1) (bona fide physician–patient relationship and benefit) | Court found at least a question of fact on element (1); prosecution did not contest sufficiency for submission | Witt argued registry card and facts created a question of fact on the physician–patient element | Trial court correctly found a question of fact on element (1); appellate court agreed |
| Whether defendant made a prima facie showing of § 8(2) (quantity reasonably necessary to ensure uninterrupted availability) | Prosecutor: mere possession of a registry card and defendant’s reliance on request insufficient to show reasonable necessity | Witt: entitled to rely on patient’s representations about needed amount; he dispensed small amount (≈4.5 g) and considered distance and age | Appellate court: question of fact existed for element (2); defendant could reasonably rely on patient’s stated need, so trial court erred as to this element |
| Whether defendant made a prima facie showing of § 8(3) (that transfer was to treat or alleviate a medical condition) | Prosecutor: registry card alone insufficient; no evidence that transfer was for medical use given Czarnecki’s limited/ceased use and lack of information provided to Witt | Witt: sale occurred at dispensary to cardholder who requested medicine; sale thus was for medical use | Appellate court: no question of fact on element (3); card alone and transaction evidence were insufficient because there was no evidence Czarnecki was using marijuana to treat a condition at the time |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying submission of § 8 defense to jury | Prosecutor: trial court properly required prima facie proof and denied submission where elements lacking | Witt: trial court misapplied Hartwick regarding element (2) and should have allowed § 8 defense to go to the jury | Court affirmed overall: although trial court erred on element (2), it did not err on element (3), so denial of § 8 defense was not an abuse of discretion and conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hartwick, 498 Mich 192 (explains § 8 elements and that a registry card alone is insufficient to establish prima facie § 8 defense)
- People v. Dupree, 486 Mich 693 (standard that trial court’s ruling on affirmative defenses is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Bylsma, 493 Mich 17 (findings of fact underlying such rulings reviewed for clear error)
- People v. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich 289 (definition of clear error standard)
- People v. Lane, 308 Mich App 38 (clarifies abuse-of-discretion review and application of law)