People v. King
291 Mich. App. 503
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant, arrested for growing marijuana, holds a MMMA registry card and seeks § 8 affirmative defense.
- Trial court dismissed charges, ruling § 8 defense applied because defendant complied with MMMA, including § 4 on growing.
- Prosecution argues MMMA compliance not shown and that growing was not in an enclosed, locked facility.
- Officers observed marijuana plants in an outdoor kennel; search warrant later uncovered plants inside defendant’s home.
- Appellate court holds § 8 requires compliance with § 4 and that the kennel/home did not meet 'enclosed, locked facility' as defined.
- Case reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 8 defense require § 4 compliance? | People contends § 8 requires § 4 compliance. | Defendant argues § 8 defense applies upon meeting its own requirements. | Yes; § 8 requires § 4 compliance and thus § 8 inapplicable here. |
| What constitutes an 'enclosed, locked facility'? | People construes narrowly, requiring a fixed, fully enclosed space. | Defendant contends kennel qualifies as enclosed, locked facility. | Kennel does not satisfy term; the facility must be similar to closet/room and secure. |
| Did defendant’s growing comply with § 4 giving MMMA protections? | People maintains noncompliance bars protection. | Defendant asserts compliance through registry and enclosure as defined. | Defendant did not comply with § 4; § 8 defense not available. |
| Was dismissal of charges an abuse of discretion based on MMMA interpretation? | Prosecution argues detention should be dismissed only if MMMA applies. | Defense argues dismissal appropriate under MMMA's shield provisions. | Trial court abused discretion; reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Redden, 290 Mich App 65 (Mich. App. 2010) (MMMA §8 allows defense if §8 requirements met; interpretation supports shield purposes)
- People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184 (Mich. 2010) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs MMMA terms)
- People v Perkins, 473 Mich 626 (Mich. 2005) (assists in determining ordinary meaning of statutory terms)
- People v Williams, 268 Mich App 416 (Mich. App. 2005) (guides interpretation within MMMA framework)
- People v Stone Transp, Inc., 241 Mich App 49 (Mich. App. 2000) (context for statutory interpretation standards)