State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock
237 Ariz. 331
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jeremy Matlock, a registered qualifying patient under Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), posted online offering marijuana plants for a "$25 donation" per plant; an undercover officer, posing as a cardholder, purchased three plants for $75.
- Matlock was indicted for sale and production of marijuana (<2 lbs.) and possession of drug paraphernalia; he moved to dismiss arguing AMMA § 36-2811(B)(3) immunized patient-to-patient transfers.
- Trial court found § 36-2811(B)(3) ambiguous, applied the rule of lenity, and dismissed the indictment; the State appealed.
- The core statutory text provides immunity for offering or providing marijuana to a qualifying patient, caregiver, or nonprofit dispensary "if nothing of value is transferred in return and the person giving the marijuana does not knowingly cause the recipient to possess more than the allowable amount."
- The court reviewed the statute de novo, considered the AMMA's structure and purpose, and examined related provisions addressing dispensaries and penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMMA § 36-2811(B)(3) immunizes a registered patient who transfers marijuana to another registered patient in exchange for something of value | Matlock: patient-to-patient transfers are permitted; the "nothing of value" limitation applies only to transfers to dispensaries | State: § 36-2811(B)(3) bars transfers for value to patients/caregivers; only dispensaries may sell under other subsections | The court held § 36-2811(B)(3) does not protect patient-to-patient transfers for value; dismissal was reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejak v. Granville, 212 Ariz. 555 (discussing de novo statutory interpretation)
- State v. Fields, 232 Ariz. 265 (recognizing patients may be prosecuted for improper transfers under AMMA)
- Gomez, 212 Ariz. 55 (initiative statutes: give effect to electorate intent)
- Arthur, 125 Ariz. 153 (avoid rendering statutory language superfluous)
- Darrah v. McClennen, 236 Ariz. 185 (electorate could have used clear language to bar prosecution)