Sign In

149290 - People v Mazur (Cynthia)

The People of the State of Michigan,
Kathryn G. Barnes
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Oakland – O’Brien, C.)
Cynthia Ann Mazur,
David Adam Rudoi


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 The Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion affirmed the trial court’s ruling defendant was not immune from prosecution under the MMMA and that defendant was not entitled to assert a § 8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.