People v. Anderson
293 Mich. App. 33
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Anderson sought to dismiss a marijuana manufacturing charge under the MMA §8 defense.
- The MMA limits immunity/defense to medical use conducted in accordance with the act and within §4 constraints.
- Anderson possessed more than 12 marijuana plants and kept some outside an enclosed, locked facility.
- Evidence showed outdoor plants and interior plants not in an enclosed, locked facility; total plant count exceeded §4 limits.
- The trial court denied the §8 motion, ruled expert testimony needed for the amount, and barred §8 defense at trial; the defense appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting Judge Kelly’s concurrence that §8 defense could be legally foreclosed under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove §8(a)(2) | Anderson argued no expert needed | King/Eller (People) contended expert input relevant | No error; expert testimony not required; nonetheless, evidence failed to show reasonableness. |
| Whether precluding §8 defense at trial was proper when motion to dismiss failed | Anderson could still raise §8 at trial | Court may bar §8 if elements unmet | Proper to preclude where undisputed facts failed §8 elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redden v Redden, 290 Mich App 65 (2010) (unregistered patients may raise §8 defense; §4 limitations apply to §8 defense enforcement)
- King v King, 291 Mich App 503 (2011) (§8 defense subject to §4 limits; must keep within 2.5 ounces and 12 plants in enclosed, locked facility)
- Waltonen, 272 Mich App 678 (2006) (defense instruction generally by jury; defense evidence burden under Lemons standard)
- Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (1998) (burden-shifting for affirmative defenses; credibility and jury role considerations)