People v. Hartuniewicz
294 Mich. App. 237
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hartuniewicz was convicted of possession of ketamine, a schedule 3 controlled substance, under MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(ii).
- Ketamine was identified in a small white powdery residue on a bag found in Hartuniewicz's residence, though related pills and powder tested negative for controlled substances.
- Defendant argued MCL 333.7227(1) excludes substances in a proportion or concentration to vitiate abuse from the CSA, and that this exclusion is an element of the offense.
- Prosecution established a prima facie case that Hartuniewicz knowingly possessed ketamine without authorization; defense did not present evidence of dilution or mixtures to vitiate abuse.
- Trial court denied a directed verdict and declined to give a jury instruction based on the exclusion, and the jury convicted Hartuniewicz.
- On appeal, the court held that the exclusion in MCL 333.7227(1) is an affirmative defense, not an element, and the defendant failed to prove the defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is MCL 333.7227(1) an element of possession of ketamine? | P lead argues exclusion is not element; prosecution need only prove possession. | Hartuniewicz contends exclusion is an element that must be disproved by the state. | Exclusion is affirmative defense, not an element. |
| Who bears the burden to prove an exemption/exception to the CSA? | People must prove possession beyond reasonable doubt. | Hartuniewicz bears burden to prove exemption under 333.7227(1). | Burden on defendant to prove exemption/exception. |
| Was the denial of a directed verdict proper? | Evidence supported all elements of possession beyond a reasonable doubt. | Because exemption was not proven, directed verdict should have been granted. | Trial court properly denied directed verdict. |
| Was the proposed special jury instruction on 333.7227(1) proper? | No instructional error; instruction not supported by evidence. | Entitled to instruction on the exemption as a defense. | Instruction properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 (2011) (statutory interpretation and directed verdict standard)
- People v Gillis, 474 Mich 105 (2006) (directed verdict and sufficiency review)
- People v Pegenau, 447 Mich 278 (1994) (burden to prove exemptions as affirmative defense)
- People v Dean, 74 Mich App 19 (1977) (burden to establish statutory exceptions as affirmative defense)
- People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506 (1979) (exemptions not elements of offense)
- People v Bailey, 85 Mich App 594 (1978) (burden to establish exemption from offense)
- People v Beatty, 78 Mich App 510 (1977) (exemption/exception as defense to CSA offense)
- Wolfe v. People, 440 Mich 508 (1992) (elements of possession and proof standards)