939 N.W.2d 728
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant overdosed in January 2017; his mother called emergency services and police; he was hospitalized and later discharged.
- Police executed a warrant on defendant’s bedroom and found 349 Xanax pills, 0.44 g MDMA, and 3.53 g U-47700 (U-47700 not a Michigan controlled substance); defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine analogues (Xanax) and possession of methamphetamine (MDMA).
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Michigan’s Good Samaritan law, MCL 333.7403(3)(a), which shields an individual who seeks/receives medical assistance after an overdose if the controlled substance possessed was in an amount “sufficient only for personal use.”
- At the hearing the prosecutor conceded the factual account but argued the quantity of Xanax exceeded personal-use amounts; the prosecutor offered no affidavits or documentary evidence.
- The trial court dismissed the charges based on public-policy concerns encouraging overdose calls, without addressing the statutory language or making factual findings about whether the Xanax was "sufficient only for personal use."
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by relying on policy rather than statutory interpretation and factual findings; remand for factual development and, if defendant makes a prima facie showing, submission of the personal-use question to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under MCL 333.7403(3)(a) was proper | Good Samaritan exception inapplicable because 349 pills exceed an amount sufficient only for personal use | Good Samaritan exception applies because defendant sought medical assistance after overdose | Reversed: trial court erred; must analyze plain statutory language and make/find facts on personal-use amount before dismissal |
| Proper interpretive approach to Good Samaritan statute | Public-policy considerations justify dismissal to encourage emergency calls | Statute must be applied according to plain language; policy cannot substitute for statutory analysis | Court must apply plain language first; public policy cannot override unambiguous statutory text |
| Burden and timing for establishing the affirmative defense | N/A (prosecution challenges applicability) | Defendant must present prima facie evidence of elements of the Good Samaritan defense | Defendant bears burden to produce prima facie evidence; if produced, jury decides factual issue; if not, court decides as matter of law |
| Sufficiency of the record to resolve personal-use question | Existing record (prosecutor’s assertion) is sufficient to deny Good Samaritan protection | Record lacks evidence of defendant’s personal-use habits or typical Xanax usage | Current record insufficient; remand to allow evidentiary development and factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Nicholson, 297 Mich App 191 (review standard for motion to dismiss)
- People v Rea, 500 Mich 422 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v Lowe, 484 Mich 718 (plain-language first in statutory interpretation)
- People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278 (avoid constructions that render statutory language surplusage)
- People v Pinkney, 501 Mich 259 (courts may not rely on policy in lieu of statutory language)
- People v Baham, 321 Mich App 228 (interpreting personal-use exception in a different statutory context)
- People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600 (quantity and packaging may support inference of intent to deliver)
- People v Crawford, 232 Mich App 608 (defendant must produce prima facie evidence for an affirmative defense)