2017 CO 74
Colo.2017Background
- In 2016 Austin Joseph Lente used butane to extract hash oil from marijuana at home; the butane exploded and caused a fire.
- Lente was charged under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-406(2)(a)(I) with knowingly processing or manufacturing marijuana or marijuana concentrate (unlicensed).
- District court dismissed the manufacturing/processing charge, reasoning Amendment 64 decriminalized processing marijuana. The People appealed directly to the Colorado Supreme Court.
- Amendment 64 (Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 16) legalized certain personal uses (including “processing ... marijuana plants” for persons 21+) and separately protected licensed “manufacturing” as part of regulated facilities.
- The majority analyzed whether unlicensed butane hash-oil extraction is protected personal “processing” or instead constitutes unlicensed “manufacturing” excluded from Amendment 64’s personal-use protection.
Issues
| Issue | Lente's Argument | People/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 64’s personal-use protection for “processing ... marijuana plants” covers unlicensed hash-oil extraction | Lente: extracting hash oil is "processing" of marijuana plants and thus protected by Amendment 64 | State: extracting hash oil is an extraction/chemical synthesis—i.e., "manufacturing"—and requires a license, so Amendment 64 does not protect it | Court held: extraction of hash oil is "manufacturing," not "processing," so Amendment 64 does not protect unlicensed extraction; prosecution may proceed |
| Whether statutory terms are ambiguous such that Amendment 64 should be read to include extraction as processing | Lente: terms are ambiguous; settled meaning supports processing to include extraction | State: CSA defined "manufacture" to include extraction, and "process" must exclude extraction; settled meaning adopted by voters | Court held: CSA’s settled meaning at adoption treated extraction as manufacturing; presume Amendment 64 adopted that meaning |
| Whether § 18-18-406(2)(a)(I) is overbroad in light of Amendment 64 | Lente: statute sweeps in protected conduct | State: overbreadth doctrine applies to speech; inapplicable here | Court held: overbreadth doctrine does not apply; claim fails |
| Whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Lente: boundaries between permissible processing and prohibited manufacturing are unclear | State: Lente’s conduct clearly fits statutory definition of manufacturing by extraction | Court held: not vague as applied—hash-oil extraction squarely fits the statutory definition of manufacturing |
Key Cases Cited
- Justus v. State, 336 P.3d 202 (Colo. 2014) (standard for reviewing statutory constitutionality)
- Colorado Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, 269 P.3d 1248 (Colo. 2012) (presume voter initiatives adopt settled meanings of terms)
- E-470 Pub. Highway Auth. v. Revenig, 91 P.3d 1038 (Colo. 2004) (uphold statute absent clear and unmistakable conflict with constitution)
- City of Greenwood Vill. v. Petitioners for the Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427 (Colo. 2000) (avoid constructions that create superfluity)
- Spahmer v. Gullette, 113 P.3d 158 (Colo. 2005) (construe statute to give effect to every word)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (discusses list of ‘‘magic words’’ for express advocacy)
- People v. Graves, 368 P.3d 317 (Colo. 2016) (limits overbreadth doctrine and vagueness as-applied principles)
- People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251 (Colo. 2009) (rule of lenity applies when ambiguity remains after construction)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (rule of lenity for ambiguous criminal statutes)