424 P.3d 447
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- In March 2013 Rodney Jones, a registered AMMA qualifying patient, was found with 0.050 ounces of hashish and a jar; indicted for possession of a narcotic drug (cannabis/hashish) and drug paraphernalia.
- Jones moved to dismiss pretrial claiming AMMA immunity because he possessed less than 2.5 ounces of a marijuana “preparation.” Motion denied after evidentiary hearing.
- Jones waived jury, was convicted by the court in Sept. 2016 and sentenced to concurrent presumptive terms; he appealed the denial of his dismissal motion.
- Central legal dispute: whether AMMA’s immunity for medical “marijuana” and its defined terms includes hashish/cannabis (the resin extracted from the plant).
- The court analyzed statutory text, prior judicial constructions distinguishing marijuana and hashish, and AMMA’s definitions for “marijuana” and “usable marijuana.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AMMA immunize possession/use of hashish (cannabis/resin)? | Jones: hashish is a "preparation" of marijuana; less than 2.5 oz -> AMMA immunity. | State: criminal code treats resin (cannabis/hashish) differently; AMMA does not clearly include extracted resin. | Court majority: AMMA does not immunize possession/use of cannabis/hashish; convictions affirmed. |
| How to resolve conflict between AMMA definitions and criminal-code terms? | Jones: AMMA is later and should control; its purpose supports broad inclusion. | State: read AMMA in light of preexisting judicial/legislative understanding that distinguishes marijuana and hashish. | Court: read statutes together; prior authoritative constructions incorporated — distinction persists; AMMA silent on hashish, so no immunity. |
| Does AMMA’s phrase "mixture or preparation thereof" cover concentrates/resin? | Jones: that phrase shows intent to include all preparations. | State: "mixture or preparation" means edibles/infused products, not extracted resin. | Court: phrase pertains to "usable marijuana" (dried flowers and mixtures), not extracted resin; hashish excluded. |
| Should courts adopt AMMA’s plain definition of "marijuana" to include "all parts of the plant" and thus include resin? | Jones (dissent): AMMA definition of "marijuana" is broad and unambiguous, so resin is included. | Majority: prior judicial meaning and criminal-code distinctions inform interpretation; absence of explicit inclusion means voters did not grant immunity for hashish. | Majority: declined to adopt dissent’s plain-language reading; majority rule controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bollander, 110 Ariz. 84 (distinguishing hashish as resin extracted from marijuana plant and treating it separately)
- Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (give effect to intent of electorate for voter-initiated statutes)
- State v. Fields ex rel. Cty. of Pima, 232 Ariz. 265 (burden: patient proves immunity by preponderance showing actions fall within range of immune action)
- State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358 (legislature treated hashish and marijuana differently due to potency concerns)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (when new statute repeats language with settled judicial interpretation, prior interpretation is informative)