People v. Danto
294 Mich. App. 596
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This is a set of four consolidated interlocutory appeals challenging pretrial evidentiary rulings in cases involving Michael Danto and Andrew Nater regarding the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMA).
- Prosecution appeals the trial court’s order denying admission of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) for both Danto and Nater.
- Defendants appeal the order precluding an MMA §8 defense and references to the MMA at trial; Danto separately challenges an evidentiary hearing and dismissal under the MMA.
- The court affirms the MMA defense preclusion rulings in two docket numbers and reverses the other-acts rulings in two docket numbers, remanding for further proceedings.
- Key issue concerns whether the other-acts evidence is admissible to show knowledge, control, and intent to distribute marijuana found at the home, and whether the MMA defenses and trial references were properly precluded.
- The majority discusses King, Redden, Kolanek, and Anderson to resolve the viability of the MMA §8 defense and enclosure requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) | Prosecution: evidence relevant to knowledge, control, and distribution intent; probative value not substantially outweighed. | Evidence unfairly prejudicial and improperly character evidence; should be excluded or limited. | Abuse of discretion; reversed as to admissibility (Danto 302986 and Nater 302991). |
| Viability of the MMA § 8 defense and references to MMA at trial | King/Anderson allow § 8 defenses; trial should permit MMA references if elements met. | MMA § 4 enclosure requirements limit or bar § 8 defense; references to MMA should be allowed only if appropriate. | Trial court's preclusion upheld; § 8 defense not properly raised given enclosure requirements. |
| Evidentiary hearing under the MMA § 8 defense | Danto entitled to an evidentiary hearing if elements of § 8 are met. | No factual dispute to resolve and failure to meet enclosure requirements forecloses hearing. | No abuse of discretion; hearing not required where elements not established and enclosure requirement not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Martzke, 251 Mich App 282 (2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v Blackston, 481 Mich 451 (2008) (unfair prejudice balancing under MRE 403)
- People v Kahley, 277 Mich App 182 (2007) (three-part MRE 404(b) test)
- People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572 (2001) (jury instruction on limited use of MRE 404(b) evidence)
- People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600 (2005) (unfair prejudice standards for MRE 404(b) evidence)
- People v Redden, 290 Mich App 65 (2010) (articulation of MMA §8 defense vs §4 protections)
- People v Kolanek, 291 Mich App 227 (2011) (pretrial motion not required to bar §8 defense but defense may be raised at trial)
- People v King, 291 Mich App 503 (2011) (enclosure requirement under §4 connected to §8 defense; effect on admissibility)
- People v Anderson, 293 Mich App 33 (2011) (concurrence on limiting cross-examination under Confrontation Clause)
- Likine, 288 Mich App 648 (2010) (defendant burden to present evidence on §8 elements)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause concerns in cross-examination)