People of Michigan v. James Amsdill
334572
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Defendant James Amsdill and his wife operated three Blue Water Compassion Center (BWCC) medical-marijuana dispensaries; undercover buys in Dec 2011 led to search warrants and charges for a criminal enterprise and conspiracy to deliver marijuana.
- Circuit court originally dismissed charges as unforeseeable under Michigan v McQueen (McQueen II); this Court reversed in Amsdill I, holding McQueen II applied retroactively.
- On remand defendant renewed an entrapment-by-estoppel defense, claiming reliance on (a) a Sanilac County Drug Task Force director (William Gray) who allegedly told him patient-to-patient sales were legal and (b) a Kimball Township ordinance and statements by local officials.
- Evidence included defendant’s testimony, township meeting minutes (showing his attorney warned the law was unclear), recorded jail calls showing defendant’s continued control and awareness of McQueen I, and Gray’s testimony denying he told Amsdill sales were legal.
- The circuit court found Amsdill credible and dismissed the charges on entrapment-by-estoppel grounds; the Court of Appeals reviews the legal question de novo and the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Amsdill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was entrapment by estoppel established? | No—elements not met. | Yes—Gray and officials told him sales were legal; he relied. | No—defense not established; dismissal reversed. |
| 2. Did Amsdill actually rely on Gray’s alleged statement? | No—sales predated Gray’s statement; no evidence he would have stopped. | Yes—Gray told him patient-to-patient sales were legal and he acted on that. | No—actual reliance not established. |
| 3. Was Amsdill’s reliance reasonable and in good faith? | No—Amsdill was informed of legal uncertainty, read MMMA extensively, and knew McQueen I; Gray’s jurisdiction limited. | Yes—Gray was a government official; his statement was a reasonable basis for reliance. | No—reliance was unreasonable and not in good faith. |
| 4. Would prosecution be unfair given alleged reliance? | Prosecution is fair; Amsdill knew or should have known better. | Prosecution would be unfair because of government misinformation. | No—prosecution is not unfair under circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- McQueen v. People, 493 Mich 135; 828 NW2d 644 (2013) (Michigan Supreme Court interpretation of MMMA excludes patient-to-patient sales)
- McQueen v. People, 293 Mich App 644; 811 NW2d 513 (2011) (appellate decision rejecting immunity for patient-to-patient transfers)
- People v. Johnson, 302 Mich App 450; 838 NW2d 889 (2013) (McQueen II applied retroactively)
- People v. Pierce, 272 Mich App 394; 725 NW2d 691 (2006) (elements and burden for entrapment by estoppel)
- People v. Woods, 241 Mich App 545; 616 NW2d 211 (2000) (scope and proper use of entrapment-by-estoppel defense)
- People v. Fyda, 288 Mich App 446; 793 NW2d 712 (2010) (standard of review for entrapment questions)
- People v. Martin, 199 Mich App 124; 501 NW2d 198 (1993) (deference to trial court credibility findings)