Defendant
was arrested for selling marijuana to a confidential informant of the Oakland County
Sheriff’s Office. He was subsequently charged with the sale and production of marijuana
and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm). Defendant
holds a valid registry identification card under the MMMA. He claimed that
possession of the card entitles him to (1) immunity from prosecution under § 4
of the MMMA for the charges not relating to the sale of marijuana, and (2) an
affirmative defense under § 8 of the MMMA for all the charges. In addition,
defendant argued that the testimony of his medical marijuana patients allows
him to assert the § 8 affirmative defense. The trial court rejected both
arguments and 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 rejected defendant’s arguments
and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) ruled
that defendant was not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution under §
4, (2) denied defendant’s request for dismissal under § 8, and (3) held that
defendant could not present the § 8
defense
at trial. Defendant appealed.
In an order dated June 11, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the
application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014 judgment of the Court of
Appeals. The parties were directed to include the issues to be briefed: (1)
whether a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marihuana
Act (MMMA), who makes unlawful sales of marijuana to another patient to whom he
is not connected through the registration process, taints all aspects of his
marijuana-related conduct, even that which is otherwise permitted under the
act; (2) whether a defendant’s possession of a valid registry identification
card establishes any presumption for purposes of § 4 or § 8; (3) if not, what
is a defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish immunity under § 4 or an
affirmative defense under § 8; and (4) 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.