People v. Reed
294 Mich. App. 78
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant was charged with manufacturing marijuana; plants found before physician certification; he later obtained doctor’s approval and MDCH registry card but was arrested before/after those events? Note: arrest occurred after certification and card were obtained.
- Court extends §8 affirmative-defense timing to require physician’s statement before the illicit conduct, not merely before arrest.
- Defendant contends §8 defense should apply if physician approved before arrest; he lacked registry card at time of offense, arguing immunity under §4.
- Lower court denied motion to dismiss; issue on whether pre-arrest physician statement is required for §8 defense and whether §4 immunity applies without a registry card.
- Statutory interpretation standard applied; MMMA initiative language given ordinary meaning; avoid surplusage; consider timing rules to avoid absurd results.
- Opinion affirms denial of motion to dismiss and remands for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must physician’s statement precede the illegal conduct for §8 defense | Kolanek requires pre-arrest statement | Statement before arrest suffices | Yes; statement must precede the illegal conduct |
| Does §8 timing extend to pre-offense conduct (before alleged manufacture) | Same as Kolanek—before arrest | Arrest timing should be controlling | Yes; physician’s statement must precede the purported offense |
| Is defendant immune under §4 without a registry card | Immunity if qualifying patient lacks card? | Card absent, so no immunity | No immunity without registry card at time of offense |
| Effect of pretrial denial of motion to dismiss on §8 defense at trial | Pretrial denial should bar later defense | Defendant may present defense at trial with more proof | Undisputed facts preclude §8 defense; barred from trial |
| Do ancillary authorities (Anderson, Root) influence timing interpretation | Support timing before incident | Limitations to arrest timing | Court reasons for timing before conduct; avoids absurd results |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolanek v. Michigan, 291 Mich App 227 (2011) (affirmative defense requires physician statement before arrest; extended to before conduct)
- People v Redden, 290 Mich App 65 (2010) (statutory interpretation; initiative language; plain meaning)
- Welch Foods, Inc v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459 (1995) (statutory meaning and purpose in scheme)
- People v Anderson, 293 Mich App 33 (2011) (discusses pretrial motion impact on §8 defense; undisputed facts standard)
- Oregon v Root, 202 Or App 491 (2005) (state analog on pre-incident physician advice for medical marijuana defense)