249 P.3d 375
Idaho2011Background
- Fluewelling indicted for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a felony.
- Officer smelled marijuana near his residence; Fluewelling claimed to be an active member of THC Ministries and used marijuana sacramentally.
- Two days later, search warrant yielded nine grams of marijuana; Fluewelling waived Miranda and claimed ordained ministry with THC Ministries, providing marijuana as a sacrament without compensation, and presented sanctuary card and sanctuary residence claim.
- He moved to transfer the case to misdemeanor handling, arguing Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(B) was unconstitutionally vague; district court denied.
- Fluewelling pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal, challenging both the vagueness of the statute and the free-exercise claim.
- Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s rulings and conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(B) unconstitutionally vague? | State argues the statute provides adequate notice and defines 'deliver' via transfer. | Fluewelling contends the statute is overbroad/vague and cannot distinguish felony from misdemeanor in shared use of small amounts. | Not vague; statute provides notice and guidelines; overbreadth argument rejected. |
| Does prosecuting Fluewelling for possession with intent to deliver violate free exercise? | State argues the statute is neutral and generally applicable, not targeting religious practice. | Fluewelling asserts violation of free exercise by criminalizing sacramental use of marijuana. | No violation; statute neutral/general-applicability; Art I §4 not violated; no special religious exemption recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise incorporation to states)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral law of general applicability allows regulation of religiously motivated conduct)
- United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) (conscience rights limited by general criminal laws)
- Toncray v. Budge, 14 Idaho 621 (1908) (liberty of conscience not to excuse criminal acts; laws govern actions)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) (policies permitting regulation of conduct in religion-based crimes)
- Korsen v. State, 138 Idaho 706 (2003) ( vagueness requires notice and minimal enforcement guidelines)