2020 COA 160
Colo. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In July 2016 Mesa County officers discovered bags of marijuana in a truck and learned Aaron Torline operated a garage-based grow containing about 115 plants; he estimated processing ~10 plants/month at ~2 ounces/plant.
- Torline, an ordained minister of the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry, said he provided marijuana to congregants as part of religious practice.
- He was charged under Colorado law with cultivation of thirty or more marijuana plants and possession with intent to distribute more than five but not more than fifty pounds.
- Defense sought to present an affirmative Free Exercise defense and jury instruction based on sincerely held religious belief; the trial court denied the instruction, Torline waived a jury, and the court convicted him.
- On appeal Torline argued (1) the statutes’ application violated the Free Exercise Clauses of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions and (2) the prosecution failed to prove the offenses occurred in Colorado; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying Colo. § 18-18-406 to religious marijuana use violates Free Exercise | State: statute is a neutral law of general applicability regulating marijuana, valid as applied | Torline: his sincere religious use places him outside reach of the criminal law; less restrictive alternatives exist | Held: statute is neutral and generally applicable under Smith; Free Exercise does not exempt him from compliance; conviction affirmed |
| Whether evidence proved offenses occurred in Colorado | State: officer testimony locating investigation "here in Mesa County" establishes venue in Colorado | Torline: testimony did not prove the acts occurred in Colorado | Held: context made clear "here in Mesa County" meant Mesa County, Colorado; evidence sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate Free Exercise even if they incidentally burden religious practice)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (Free Exercise protects both belief and some forms of conduct)
- United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (sincerity of religious belief is the threshold for protection)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (facially neutral law can be invalidated where enacted with religious animus or discriminatory exceptions)
- Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (government action does not violate Free Exercise when it does not deny equal share of rights or single out religion for disfavored treatment)
- United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir.) (rejecting cannabis-ministry Free Exercise defense to drug charges)
- Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.) (same: cannabis ministry claim rejected)