People v. Mazur
497 Mich. 302
Mich.2015Background
- Cynthia Mazur was charged with manufacturing and possession with intent to deliver marijuana found in her marital home; her husband David was a registered qualifying patient and registered primary caregiver and pled guilty to related offenses.
- Police found plants, dried marijuana, and pipes; Cynthia acknowledged involvement (used “we”) but said her role was limited to writing harvest dates on sticky notes.
- Cynthia moved to dismiss under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) immunity provisions, §§ 4(g) and 4(i); circuit court and Court of Appeals rejected her claim.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether immunity applies where the patient/caregiver’s marijuana activities were not fully compliant with the MMMA and whether non-registered persons who supply paraphernalia or are merely present are protected.
- The Court considered the MMMA as originally enacted (pre-2012 amendments), focusing on definitions of “medical use” and whether “marihuana paraphernalia” includes ordinary items actually used in cultivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4(i) immunity protects a person who was solely "in the presence or vicinity" when the patient’s medical use was not in accordance with the MMMA | § 4(i) protects mere presence regardless of compliance because one cannot control another’s actions | Presence-only immunity should apply only when the underlying medical use complies with the MMMA | Not entitled: § 4(i) immunity requires the underlying medical use be in accordance with the MMMA; presence when noncompliant use occurs is not covered |
| Whether § 4(i) covers assistance beyond "using" or "administering" (e.g., cultivation) | Assistance of any kind with a qualifying patient's marijuana activities should be protected | § 4(i) is limited to assisting with use or administration (ingestion), not broader activities like cultivation | Not entitled: assistance in cultivation/manufacture is outside § 4(i)’s "using"/"administering" scope |
| Whether § 4(g) immunity applies for providing "marihuana paraphernalia" — scope of that term | "Marihuana paraphernalia" includes items specifically designed for, and items actually employed for, medical use (even ordinary items used in cultivation) | Paraphernalia should be limited to items "specifically designed" for drug use per PHC drug-paraphernalia definition; ordinary office supplies (sticky notes) are excluded | Court: "marihuana paraphernalia" covers both items specifically designed for marijuana use and ordinary items actually employed for a qualifying patient’s medical use; sticky notes used to track harvest dates fall within § 4(g) |
| Effect of § 4(g) immunity on prosecution evidence | All evidence relating to provision of paraphernalia must be excluded if § 4(g) applies | § 4(g) only shields the act of providing paraphernalia; other nonimmune conduct may still support prosecution | § 4(g) bars prosecution from relying on the paraphernalia-supply evidence (e.g., sticky notes) but does not automatically bar prosecution on other evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. McQueen, 493 Mich 135 (Mich. 2013) (interpreting § 4(i) limits to "use" and "administering" as ingestion-limited)
- People v. Bylsma, 493 Mich 17 (Mich. 2012) (MMMA as an exception to the Public Health Code)
- People v. Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (Mich. 2012) (discussing MMMA purpose and interaction with the Public Health Code)
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich 230 (Mich. 1999) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- People v. Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (Mich. 2014) (avoid interpreting statutes to render language surplusage)
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich 545 (Mich. 2006) (doctrine limiting application of definitions expressly confined to particular statutes)