People v. Nicholson
297 Mich. App. 191
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant appeals the circuit court's denial of leave to appeal the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a possession charge under the MMMA.
- Arrest occurred May 1, 2011; defendant in a vehicle with about one ounce of marijuana, claimed medical-use status, but registry card paperwork was at his residence in his own car.
- District court denied the motion to dismiss under MMMA §4(a), arguing the defendant did not have an issued registry card in hand.
- Circuit court denied relief, focusing on whether 'possesses' requires immediate possession of a registry card; concluded the term has both arrest and prosecution/penalty implications.
- Court reversed and remanded: (a) for whether defendant was engaging in medical use at arrest; (b) for proper application of §4(a) immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty, and (c) to address prosecution-immunity separately; noting card was produced at prosecution.
- Court ultimately held defendant was not immune from arrest due to lack of reasonably accessible paperwork at the arrest location, but was immune from prosecution if the card was reasonably accessible at prosecution; remand granted for further fact development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §4(a)'s 'possesses' require on-person possession or can it be constructive? | Defendant argues constructive possession suffices. | State argues possession must be on person and readily accessible. | Arrest immunity requires the card to be reasonably accessible at arrest; constructive possession insufficient here. |
| Can immunity from prosecution apply even if arrested without on-person card, provided card is accessible at prosecution? | N/A (defendant's position supported by production of card at prosecution). | N/A | Yes: prosecution immunity can attach if the registry card is reasonably accessible at the time of prosecution. |
| Whether defendant was engaged in medical use of marijuana at the time of arrest must be resolved to determine §4(a) immunity from prosecution/penalty. | Defendant contends MMMA medical-use conduct should be established; remand to decide. | N/A | Remanded to determine whether the arrest conduct complied with 'medical use' under the MMMA. |
| Did the district court err by conflating §4 and §8 and must the court treat them as separate paths? | Defendant argues §4 and §8 are independent. | N/A | District court erred; MMMA provides two independent avenues, and §4 does not require physician-patient relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redden, 290 Mich App 65 (2010) (interpretation of initiative statutes; ordinary meaning and purpose in statutory scheme)
- McQueen, 293 Mich App 644 (2011) (possession and immunity interpretation; present tense; accessibility)
- Bylsma, 294 Mich App 219 (2011) (MMMA scope; two ways to show medical use; independence of §4 and §8)
- Welch Foods, Inc v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459 (1995) (statutory interpretation: ordinary meaning; avoid surplusage)
- Williams, 268 Mich App 416 (2005) (consider placement and purpose in statutory scheme)
- Campbell, 289 Mich App 533 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard for motion to dismiss)
- Blackston, 481 Mich 451 (2008) (principled outcomes standard for abuse of discretion)