People v. Bylsma
493 Mich. 17
| Mich. | 2012Background
- Bylsma, a registered primary caregiver for two qualifying patients, leased warehouse space to cultivate marijuana and to assist others; he grew 88 plants and claimed 24 were his under §4 immunity for two patients.
- Lower courts held §4 immunity requires a patient/caregiver’s plants to be kept in a single, enclosable, locked facility accessible to only one person; court rejected collective cultivation.
- Defendant argued the MMMA permits a collective growing operation and immunity under §4 or, alternatively, an affirmative defense under §8.
- Court of Appeals held he possessed all plants in the warehouse and thus exceeded §4 limits, precluding §4 immunity and §8 defense.
- Supreme Court held §4 does not contemplate collective cultivation; §4 limits possession to 12 plants per connected patient (total 24 for two patients) and a single person may possess a patient’s plants; remanded to permit assertion of §8 defense under Kolanek.
- Court remanded for proceedings consistent with Kolanek to consider whether the §8 affirmative defense can be established even though §4 immunity limits were exceeded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §4 immunity permit a collective cultivation operation? | People argued no collective cultivation under §4. | Bylsma claimed immunity via §4 for collective cultivation for connected patients. | §4 does not authorize collective cultivation; only individual possession limits apply. |
| Did Bylsma possess more plants than §4 allows? | People asserted defendant exceeded 24-plant limit. | Bylsma argued only his 24 plants should be counted for immunity. | Bylsma possessed all plants in the warehouse, exceeding §4 limits. |
| Can §8 defense be pursued even if §4 immunity is not satisfied? | Not necessary to allow §8 if §4 immunity fails. | Kolanek permits §8 defense independent of §4. | §8 defense may be asserted independently; remand to determine merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (2012) (§8 defense available without proving §4 immunity; procedural requirements clarified)
- People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508 (1992) (possession defined by dominion and control; constructive possession recognized)
- Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230 (1999) (statutory interpretation and parol considerations in evaluating intent)