State of Arizona v. Liwski
238 Ariz. 184
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ryan Gillie, a registered designated caregiver under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), was arrested carrying 3.5 ounces of marijuana; growing equipment and plants were found at his home.
- Charges: possession of marijuana for sale, production of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Gillie was the designated caregiver for one qualifying patient and is authorized to cultivate for that patient; AMMA allocates 2.5 ounces per patient for caregivers.
- The State moved to preclude Gillie from asserting AMMA-based immunity/defense; the trial judge denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial judge relied on AMMA § 36-2811(B)(3) to allow Gillie to claim immunity for excess marijuana he intended to transfer to other cardholders; the State sought special-action review.
- The Court of Appeals granted relief, holding the trial judge erred: § 36-2811(B)(3) permits immunity for transfers but does not authorize possession above the statutory per-patient limit in (B)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a designated caregiver may possess more than the allowable amount per patient and still claim AMMA immunity | State: caregiver for one patient may possess only 2.5 oz and thus Gillie (3.5 oz) is not entitled to immunity | Gillie: (B)(3) permits possession above 2.5 oz if the excess is intended to be provided to other cardholders | Held: (B)(3) grants immunity for offering/providing transfers, not a separate possession allowance; Gillie exceeded the 2.5 oz possession limit and cannot claim immunity under (B)(2) |
| Whether § 36-2811(B)(3) creates an independent possession exception for cultivators | State: (B)(3) does not create a possession allowance; it only protects transfers | Gillie: (B)(3) should be read to allow possession of excess marijuana pending transfer | Held: (B)(3) does not create a separate possession allowance; it is a mechanism to avoid possession by transferring, not to permit excess possession |
| Whether statutory ambiguity or the rule of lenity requires a broader reading of AMMA | Gillie: statute ambiguous; liberal construction or lenity should allow his defense | State: statute is unambiguous; apply plain text limiting possession | Held: statute unambiguous; apply plain meaning; rule of lenity inapplicable to unambiguous statute |
| Whether applying possession limits would produce absurd results that justify broader reading | Gillie: strict limits cause absurd outcomes (e.g., cultivators’ practical difficulties, police harassment, inability to transfer excess) | State: limits reasonable and not absurd; (B)(3) already provides transfer mechanism | Held: Court rejects absurdity claims; requiring compliance with possession limits is not absurd and (B)(3) does not authorize excess possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (2015) (statutory interpretation of AMMA principles)
- State v. Gomez, 212 Ariz. 55 (2006) (give effect to electorate intent for initiative statutes)
- State v. Matlock, 237 Ariz. 331 (2015) (apply clear statutory language as written)
- State v. Fields, 232 Ariz. 265 (2013) (AMMA provides presumption and immunity scheme under § 36-2811)
- State v. Bernini, 230 Ariz. 223 (2012) (special-action relief when judge abuses discretion or errs as a matter of law)
- Fuller v. Olson, 233 Ariz. 468 (2013) (special-action jurisdiction for novel statewide legal questions)
- Chaparral Dev. v. RMED Int’l, Inc., 170 Ariz. 309 (1991) (construe statutes to avoid conflict and give effect to each provision)
- State v. Fell, 203 Ariz. 186 (2002) (rule of lenity not applicable to unambiguous statutes)
- Evans Withycomb, Inc. v. W. Innovations Inc., 215 Ariz. 237 (App. 2007) (definition of "absurd result" for statutory interpretation)
- State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247 (2001) (absurdity doctrine standards)