People of Michigan v. Robert Tuttle
498 Mich. 192
| Mich. | 2015Background
- Two consolidated Michigan Supreme Court appeals: People v Hartwick and People v Tuttle, involving claimed protections of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) §§4 (immunity) and 8 (affirmative defense).
- Hartwick: registered patient and primary caregiver for five connected patients; police found disputed number of plants (71 v. 77) and ~3.69 oz marijuana; trial court denied pretrial §4 immunity and §8 defense; Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court remanded for further review.
- Tuttle: registered patient and caregiver to at least one other patient; sold marijuana to an unconnected person (counts I–III) and had plants/weapons at home (counts IV–VII); trial court denied §4 immunity and §8 defense; Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court reviewed.
- Central factual disputes for remand: number of plants, whether plants were in an enclosed locked facility, how many patients were connected, and whether noncompliant transactions (sales to unconnected people) had a nexus to otherwise-compliant conduct.
- Procedural holdings: §4 immunity is decided pretrial as a question of law but requires the trial court to resolve underlying factual disputes; §8 affirmative defense requires a defendant to present prima facie evidence of each statutory element before presenting to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §4 immunity is a pretrial question and burden of proof | Prosecution: immunity should not automatically apply; registry card alone insufficient | Defendants: registry card and compliance with §4 limits create presumptions; immunity applies charge-by-charge | Court: §4 immunity is a pretrial question of law; defendant bears burden to prove immunity by a preponderance for each charged offense; factual disputes resolved by trial court (clear-error review) |
| Scope of rebuttal to §4(d) presumption — does noncompliant conduct to one charge taint others | Prosecution: any noncompliant transaction rebuts §4 presumption for all conduct | Defendants: noncompliant conduct only rebuts presumption if there is a nexus to other charged conduct | Court: prosecution may rebut the presumption, but only relevant evidence showing a nexus between noncompliant conduct and the charged conduct will rebut; unrelated illicit transactions do not automatically taint otherwise-compliant charges |
| Elements and burden for §4 immunity (what must defendant prove) | Prosecution: registry card alone insufficient; defendant must prove full compliance with statute | Defendants: possession of valid registry card and compliance with volume/storage suffices to trigger presumption of medical use | Court: defendant must prove (1) valid registry card, (2) compliance with volume limits, (3) plants in enclosed locked facility, and (4) engagement in medical use; establishing (1) and (2) creates rebuttable presumption under §4(d) |
| Standard to present §8 affirmative defense and effect of registry card | Defendants: registry card (and §4 compliance) should satisfy §8 prima facie elements | Prosecution: §8 requires independent proof (physician relationship, full assessment, reasonable quantity, medical purpose) | Court: defendant must present prima facie evidence of each §8(a) element for each patient; if prima facie met, defendant must then prove each element by preponderance; registry card does not alone satisfy §8 elements (though post-2013 cards may prima facie show assessment) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kolanek, 491 Mich. 382 (2012) (distinguishes §4 immunity from §8 defense; explains pretrial dismissal where §8 elements undisputed)
- People v D’Angelo, 401 Mich. 167 (1977) (defendant bears burden to prove affirmative defenses by preponderance)
- People v Julliet, 439 Mich. 34 (1991) (entrapment hearings as trial-court factual determinations)
- Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) (presumption of innocence and burden on prosecution to prove crime elements)