People of Michigan v. Richard Lee Hartwick
332391
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Police performed a knock‑and‑talk at Hartwick’s Pontiac home after a tip; Hartwick admitted growing marijuana and escorted officers to a locked grow room where numerous plants and paraphernalia were observed and seized.
- Officers counted between 70 and 78 plants; forensic testing confirmed marijuana and some plants were submitted to the lab. Hartwick was charged with delivery/manufacture of 5–45 kg marijuana and possession with intent to deliver.
- Hartwick sought immunity under §4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) and alternatively asserted a §8 affirmative defense; the trial court denied dismissal and excluded the §8 defense for lack of prima facie proof.
- The Michigan Supreme Court remanded for a §4 evidentiary hearing; after a three‑day hearing the trial court found Hartwick had caregiver registry cards for five patients but possessed more than the MMMA plant limit and therefore denied §4 immunity.
- Trial proceeded: the court denied Hartwick’s suppression motion (finding voluntary consent to search), admitted text messages from his phone (offered as his statements), and qualified a narcotics expert; the jury convicted and Hartwick appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hartwick was entitled to §4 MMMA immunity | Prosecution: Hartwick exceeded the MMMA plant limit and thus fails the §4 elements | Hartwick: he possessed valid registry cards, stayed within 72‑plant limit, and complied with MMMA; thus immune | Court: affirmed denial of §4 immunity — credible evidence showed over 72 plants, so immunity fails |
| Whether search of the home violated Fourth Amendment | Prosecution: officers obtained voluntary consent during knock‑and‑talk | Hartwick: officers entered on apparent warrant and he did not consent | Court: consent was voluntary; suppression denial affirmed |
| Admissibility / chain of custody of plant evidence | Prosecution: testimony and lab testing link seized plants to defendant’s house; chain established sufficiently | Hartwick: no adequate chain of custody for plants/counts | Court: admission proper — real plants not introduced; lab testing and officer labeling sufficiently tied evidence to scene; any dispute was weight, not admissibility |
| Admission of phone text messages and expert testimony | Prosecution: texts are Hartwick’s statements (party admissions) and relevant to intent; expert properly qualified | Hartwick: texts were improper other‑acts evidence; expert unqualified | Court: texts admitted as admissions and relevant; expert issue waived by defense acquiescence; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hartwick, 498 Mich. 192 (2015) (sets the §4 MMMA test and presumption elements for medical‑use immunity)
- People v. Hartwick, 303 Mich. App. 247 (2013) (appellate decision addressing §4 and §8 MMMA issues)
- People v. Bylsma, 493 Mich. 17 (2012) (standard for clear‑error review)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (standard for plain‑error review affecting substantial rights)
- People v. Farrow, 461 Mich. 202 (1999) (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
- People v. Douglas, 496 Mich. 557 (2014) (preservation requirements for evidentiary objections)
- People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (1998) (elements and proof for possession with intent to deliver)