The police arrested
defendant and her husband after discovering marijuana growing in their
basement. At the time, defendant’s
husband was a registered and qualifying patient and was the primary caregiver
for two other patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). Defendant was charged with one count of
possession with intent to deliver less than five kilograms or fewer than 20
plants of marihuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii), and one count of manufacturing less than five kilograms or
fewer than 20 plants of marihuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii). Her husband pled
guilty to similar charges. But defendant moved
to dismiss the charges, arguing that she was entitled to immunity under
§ 4(g) of the MMMA [providing “marihuana paraphernalia” to a registered
qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver for purposes of the “medical
use of marihuana”] or § 4(i) [merely being in the presence or vicinity of
“the medical use of marihuana” in accordance with the act]. Defendant also sought leave to assert an
affirmative defense under § 8.
The trial court denied defendant’s motions. Defendant
appealed. The Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion affirmed the trial
court’s ruling defendant was not immune from prosecution under the MMMA and
that defendant was not entitled to assert a § 8 affirmative defense. Defendant
appealed.In an order dated October 23, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the
application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2014 judgment of the Court of
Appeals. The Court directed the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to
grant the application or take other action and directed the parties to submit
briefs addressing whether the defendant is entitled to immunity under § 4 of
the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) where her spouse was a registered
qualifying patient and primary caregiver under the act, but his
marijuana-related activities inside the family home were not in full compliance
with the act.