State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase
232 Ariz. 265
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- State challenges the trial court's order remanding the case to the grand jury and directing two possible AMMA interpretations.
- October 2012: officer sees Craigslist ad; Chase sells six grams for $60 to officer; police later find plants, jars, and scales at his home.
- Grand jury indicted for possession for sale (four pounds+), production (four pounds+), and paraphernalia; evidence showed weight discrepancies (18 plants vs 11 listed).
- Chase moves to dismiss/remand alleging missing exculpatory info, improper AMMA instructions, and prejudicial testimony; state agrees to remand to clarify weight; court remands after viewing evidence but instructs grand jury on two interpretations.
- Court indicated the grand jury should be instructed both ways due to lack of clear law, then State petitions for special action to limit or clarify AMMA instructions.
- AMMA provides two protections for cardholders: a presumption of medical use (rebuttable) and a statutory immunity from prosecution if not more than the allowable amount, both conditioned on compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the grand jury be instructed on multiple AMMA interpretations? | State argues for dual interpretations to guide probable cause. | Chase argues it was error to direct grand jury on competing interpretations. | Vacated the two-interpretation instruction; remand affirmed on other grounds. |
| Does AMMA immunity depend on compliance and does it foreclose prosecution if exceeded? | State contends immunity may apply only if conditions are met. | Chase asserts broader protections under AMMA extend to cardholders. | AMMA immunity is conditional and not absolute; if conditions are not met, prosecution may proceed. |
| What is the proper role of the grand jury versus the court in determining probable cause under AMMA? | State relies on court-directed legal framework for probable cause. | Chase emphasizes proper jury instruction and separation of roles. | Grand jury decides probable cause; court cannot instruct on multiple interpretations; the order was improper in that respect. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baumann, 125 Ariz. 404 (1980) (grand jury and probable cause duties; court assigns legal standards)
- Murphy v. Russell, 9 P.2d 1020 (1932) (court determines probable cause; jury determines facts)
- Crimmins v. Superior Court, 668 P.2d 882 (1983) (jury instructed on law by prosecutor in grand jury context)
- Walker v. Superior Court, 956 P.2d 1246 (1998) (defendant's right to proper legal instruction to grand jury; role of court)
- Korzep v. Superior Court, 838 P.2d 1295 (1991) (burden-shifting and immunity standards)
- Calik v. Kongable, 990 P.2d 1055 (1999) (statutory interpretation guiding presumption and immunity)