State v. Sutton, 419 P.3d 1201

Officers observed a marijuana plant outside Sutton’s home and later, with Sutton’s consent, saw a grow room with multiple mature plants; Sutton admitted cultivating and caring for the plants.
Deputies obtained a warrant and seized 10+ mature plants, 18 seedlings, scales, paraphernalia, and other grow supplies.
Sutton was charged with production, possession, paraphernalia, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest; she moved to suppress and dismiss drug charges arguing the MMA shielded her from prosecution.
At the courthouse, Sutton loudly protested to officers; deputies testified she physically resisted arrest (pulling away, stiffening, pushing off a table) and was handcuffed after a struggle.
Jury convicted on all counts; district court imposed deferred/suspended sentences; Sutton appealed contesting MMA-based immunity and sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MMA exemption bars prosecution for Sutton’s marijuana offenses	Sutton: MMA protects non-cardholders "in the presence or vicinity" of a cardholder’s authorized marijuana ‘‘use’’, which she reads to include cultivation/production, so she cannot be prosecuted	State: Sutton actively cultivated and exercised control over the plants; MMA §50-46-319(5)(a) only prevents imputing possession solely for being in the vicinity; (5)(b) permits prosecution of a non-cardholder who is in possession	Held: MMA did not bar prosecution; sufficient evidence showed Sutton knowingly possessed and produced marijuana through her cultivation activities
Whether evidence supported resisting arrest conviction	Sutton: her stiffening/pulling away and alleged lack of understanding were insufficient; she asserts resistance was due to pain or confusion	State: officers warned and announced arrest; testimony described active physical resistance (pulling away, pushing off table, needing two officers to secure cuffs)	Held: Sufficient evidence supported conviction for resisting arrest under §45-7-301, as her actions constituted use of physical force to prevent arrest

State v. Criswell, 305 P.3d 760 (Mont. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Neely, 862 P.2d 1109 (Mont. 1993) (constructive possession where defendant could have terminated control)
State v. Meader, 601 P.2d 386 (Mont. 1979) (constructive possession from dominion and control of premises)
State v. Scheffelman, 733 P.2d 348 (Mont. 1987) (joint possession imputed when substance in jointly controlled place)
State v. Spottedbear, 380 P.3d 810 (Mont. 2016) (deference to jury credibility findings)