State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones
440 P.3d 1139
Ariz.2019Background
- In March 2013 Rodney Jones, a registered AMMA qualifying patient, was found with 1.43 grams of hashish and charged with possession of cannabis and paraphernalia.
- Arizona criminal code defines "cannabis" to expressly include resin and derivatives; AMMA defines "marijuana" as "all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not."
- Jones moved to dismiss, arguing AMMA immunized his possession/use; the trial court denied the motion and he was convicted after a bench trial.
- The court of appeals affirmed, reading AMMA as not covering extracted resin/hashish and relying on prior distinctions between "marijuana" and "hashish."
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether AMMA’s definition of marijuana includes extracted resin/hashish and whether AMMA immunizes possession by a qualifying patient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMMA’s definition of "marijuana" covers extracted resin/hashish | AMMA defines "marijuana" as “all parts” of the cannabis plant, which includes resin; thus AMMA immunizes possession of hashish | AMMA should be read consistent with criminal-code distinctions: "marijuana" (from which resin not extracted) differs from "cannabis"/resin; voters did not intend to immunize resin/hashish | Held: AMMA’s definition of "marijuana" includes resin and hashish; AMMA immunizes qualifying patients’ medical use of such resin when statutory conditions met |
| Whether AMMA’s possession limits (2.5 ounces) restrict form or only quantity | Jones: "Allowable amount" limits quantity based on dried flowers equivalency, not an expansion to 2.5 oz of resin; AMMA contemplates manufactured preparations from dried flowers | State: Allowable-amount provisions and "usable marijuana" definition show voters meant to limit possession to dried flowers/usable marijuana, excluding resin | Held: The 2.5-ounce limit is measured by two-and-one-half ounces of dried flowers (or mixtures/preparations derived from that amount); AMMA’s definition of marijuana remains broad as to form but the possession cap is tied to dried-flower equivalence |
| Whether federal law (CSA/FDCA) preempts AMMA | Not raised by Jones | State argued federal preemption should invalidate AMMA protections | Court declined to consider preemption: argument not preserved below and prior Arizona precedent rejects CSA preemption; FDCA argument undeveloped |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bollander, 110 Ariz. 84 (1973) (discussed prior recognition of distinction between marijuana and hashish)
- Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (2015) (standard of review and intent for voter initiatives)
- Enloe v. Baker, 94 Ariz. 295 (1963) (use statutory definition rather than external code when statute defines term)
- State v. Pirello, 282 P.3d 662 (Mont. 2012) (contrast: Montana act incorporated criminal-code distinctions)
- People v. Carruthers, 837 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (construed "usable marijuana" as dried leaves/flowers and excluded resin)
- Ruiz v. Hull, 191 Ariz. 441 (1998) (ballot materials may be considered when construing initiatives)