Defendant, who was arrested for illegally growing and
possessing marijuana, holds a registry identification card under the Michigan
Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). He claimed that mere possession of the card
entitled him to (1) immunity from prosecution under § 4 of the MMMA and, in the
alternative, (2) an affirmative defense under § 8 of the MMMA. The trial court
rejected defendant’s theory and instead held that defendant was not entitled to
immunity under § 4 and that he had not presented the requisite evidence to make
an affirmative defense under § 8. Defendant appealed. In a published opinion,
the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling. Defendant appealed.
In an order dated June 11, 2014, the Supreme Court granted
leave to appeal the November 19, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The
parties were directed to brief the following issues: (1) whether a defendant’s
entitlement to immunity under § 4 of the MMA Act (MMMA) is a question of law
for the trial court to decide; (2) whether factual disputes regarding § 4
immunity are to be resolved by the trial court; (3) if so, whether the trial
court’s finding of fact becomes an established fact that cannot be appealed;
(4) whether a defendant’s possession of a valid registry identification card
establishes any presumption for purposes of § 4 or § 8; (5) if not, what is a
defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish immunity under § 4 or an
affirmative defense under § 8; (6) what role, if any, do the verification and
confidentiality provisions in § 6 of the act play in establishing entitlement
to immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8; and (7) whether the
Court of Appeals erred in characterizing a qualifying patient’s physician as
issuing a prescription for, or prescribing, marijuana.