United States v. Branden Barnes
677 F. App'x 271
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Barnes, an Oklevueha Native American Church (ONAC) member, cultivated large quantities of marijuana at two homes and admitted he grew it to donate to ONAC branches.
- Law enforcement found 321 plants and processed marijuana at one residence (fire call) and 71 plants plus concentrates at another; Barnes claimed ONAC membership exempted him from CSA prohibitions.
- Barnes joined ONAC quickly in 2014, paid fees, and helped start a local branch; ONAC materials identify peyote as the primary sacrament and list cannabis as one of many entheogens, not a required sacrament.
- He was indicted on manufacturing >50 marijuana plants (21 U.S.C. §§ 841) and maintaining a drug-involved premises (21 U.S.C. §§ 856); he pled guilty to Count I conditionally, preserving appeal of RFRA denial; Count II was dismissed.
- District court denied Barnes’s RFRA-based motion to dismiss and to present a RFRA defense at trial, finding (1) Barnes did not show his religious exercise was substantially burdened and (2) his belief/acts were largely personal, not central to ONAC.
- Barnes also sought rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule III on appeal; the Sixth Circuit held that claim waived by his conditional guilty plea because it was not reserved in writing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFRA exempts Barnes from CSA prohibition on manufacturing marijuana | RFRA protects Barnes’s free exercise; ONAC membership and sacral/medicinal use make manufacturing religiously protected | Government: Barnes failed to show a substantial burden on a sincerely held religious belief; marijuana is not an essential sacrament | RFRA claim denied: Barnes did not show substantial burden or that his conduct was religiously required |
| Whether RFRA-based evidence was admissible at trial (innocent-reason defense) | Barnes sought to present belief in a RFRA exemption to negate culpability | Government: Manufacture is a general-intent crime; belief about legality is irrelevant; ignorance of law is not a defense | Denied: RFRA belief irrelevant to general-intent offense (knowledge of act, not legality, is required) |
| Whether prohibition on marijuana is not a compelling government interest or not least restrictive means | Barnes argued changing views and medical research undermine government interest | Government asserted substantial interest in regulating marijuana safety and enforcement | Court accepted government’s interest; RFRA not triggered because no substantial burden shown |
| Whether appeal may raise a rescheduling claim (Schedule I -> III) | Barnes argued marijuana’s medical properties justify rescheduling; sentence should be vacated | Government: Issue not preserved in conditional plea; waived | Waived: Claim not reserved in writing in Rule 11(a)(2) conditional plea; appeal cannot raise rescheduling |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (recognition of religious-exemption analysis)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (limits on free-exercise exemptions under general laws)
- Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill, 617 F.3d 402 (RFRA elements: substantial burden, sincerity)
- Oklevueha Native Am. Church of Haw., Inc. v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 1012 (ONAC’s cannabis use insufficient to show substantial RFRA burden)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (PLUIPA decision on substantial burden and compelled choice)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (knowledge element for general-intent crimes concerns facts, not legality)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (ignorance of law is not a defense)
- United States v. Mendez-Santana, 645 F.3d 822 (waiver rule for issues not reserved in conditional plea)