STATE OF MICHIGAN v. McQUEEN
493 Mich. 135
| Mich. | 2013Background
- CA, a members-only medical marijuana dispensary, operated lockers storing marijuana for CA members to sell to other members.
- Members must be registered qualifying patients or registered primary caregivers with MDCH registry cards; basic membership is $5/month, with lockers available for a fee and a 20% service cut to CA.
- Transactions occur in a display room where members select, CA staff weigh, package, and record sales of marijuana.
- Isabella County Prosecuting Attorney filed a public nuisance action; circuit court denied a preliminary injunction after finding transfers among patients occurred and were within medical use.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding MMMA does not authorize patient-to-patient sales; majority of the Supreme Court held MMMA’s definition of medical use includes sales but immunity limits on transfers negate the nuisance; ultimately affirming the nuisance injunction on alternative grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MMMA §3(e) include sale as medical use? | People: sale is not within medical use; only transfer/delivery are contemplated. | McQueen/Taylor: sale is encompassed by medical use via transfer and delivery, with compensation not changing the medical-use scope. | Yes; sale is encompassed within medical use. |
| Does §4 immunity apply to patient-to-patient transfers? | People: transfers for others' use do not qualify for immunity. | McQueen/Taylor: transfers between patients should be immune under §4. | No; §4 immunity does not extend to transfers between patients. |
| Does §4(i) protect defendants' conduct? | People: §4(i) does not apply to facilitating transfers for pecuniary gain. | McQueen/Taylor: §4(i) could shield involvement in medical use activities. | No; §4(i) does not authorize the challenged conduct. |
| Does §8 provide a defense to the nuisance action? | People: §8 is an affirmative defense to prosecutions, not to nuisance actions. | McQueen/Taylor: §8 may provide defense to nuisance-related actions. | No; §8 is limited to criminal prosecutions or contained disciplinary contexts. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (2012) (defines MMMA scope and immunities framework)
- Michigan v McQueen, 293 Mich App 644 (2011) (addressed patient-to-patient transfers under MMMA)
- Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v City of Pontiac, 482 Mich 1 (2008) (public nuisance and underlying statutory framework)
- Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230 (1999) (statutory interpretation principles and context)
- People v Cole, 491 Mich 325 (2012) (interpretation of MMMA and related provisions)