The Michigan Supreme Court justices as they appeared in Kent County to hear oral argument in October, left to right: Mary Beth Kelly, Stephen J. Markman, Michael F. Cavanagh, Robert P. Young (Chief Justice), Marilyn Kelly, Diana M. Hathaway, and Brian K. Zahra.
LEGAL NEWS PHOTOS BY CYNTHIA PRICE
from Supreme Court records
The Michigan Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision on Dec. 19 in the Kent County-originated case People v. Bylsma. Only the Syllabus is included here; to read the full opinion, visit http://www.courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/144120%20Opinion.pdf. The background and briefs can be found at http://www.courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Oral-Arguments/2012-2013/Pages/144120.aspx
SYLLABUS
Michigan Supreme Court, Lansing, Michigan. Chief Justice: Robert P. Young, Jr.; Justices: Michael F. Cavanagh, Marilyn Kelly, Stephen J. Markman, Diane M. Hathaway, Mary Beth Kelly, Brian K. Zahra. This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Reporter of Decisions: John O. Juroszek.
PEOPLE v BYLSMA
Docket No. 144120. Argued October 11, 2012. Decided December 19, 2012.
Ryan M. Bylsma, a registered primary caregiver under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., was charged in the Kent Circuit Court with manufacturing marijuana in violation of MCL 333.7401(1) and (2)(d). Defendant moved to dismiss the charge, asserting that as the registered primary caregiver of two registered qualifying patients, he was allowed to possess 24 marijuana plants and that the remainder of the 88 plants seized by the police from his leased unit in a building belonged to other registered primary caregivers and registered qualifying patients whom defendant had offered to assist in growing and cultivating the plants. The court, George S. Buth, J., denied the motion, holding that the MMMA contains the strict requirement that each set of 12 plants permitted under the MMMA to meet the needs of a specific qualifying patient must be kept in an enclosed, locked facility that can only be accessed by one person, that defendant had failed to comply with that requirement, and that defendant was therefore not entitled to invoke either the immunity provided by § 4(b) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(b), or the affirmative defense contained in § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. Defendant appealed by leave granted. The Court of Appeals, GLEICHER, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and STEPHENS, JJ., affirmed, holding that defendant was not entitled to § 4 immunity because the MMMA did not authorize him to possess the marijuana plants that were being grown and cultivated for registered qualifying patients whom he was not connected to through the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) registration process and that his failure to meet the requirements of § 4 immunity made him ineligible to raise the § 8 defense. 294 Mich App 219 (2011). Defendant sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application for leave to appeal or take other peremptory action. 492 Mich 871 (2012).
In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice YOUNG, the Supreme Court held:
In order to receive immunity under § 4 of the MMMA, a registered primary caregiver may not possess more than 12 marijuana plants for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the state’s registration process. However, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 immunity in order establish the elements of a § 8 defense.
1. The MMMA introduced into Michigan law an exception to the Public Health Code’s prohibition on the use of controlled substances by permitting the medical use of marijuana when carried out in accordance with the MMMA’s provisions. Section 4(b) of the MMMA limits the amount of marijuana that a registered primary caregiver may possess and still be entitled to § 4 immunity. In particular, § 4(b)(2) limits the number of marijuana plants that a registered primary caregiver may possess to 12 plants for each registered qualifying patient connected to the primary caregiver through the MDCH registration process. Section 4(a) concerns registered qualifying patients and contains similar limitations on the possession of marijuana plants. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly held that only one of two people may possess a patient’s 12 marijuana plants for purposes of immunity under §§ 4(a) and 4(b): the registered qualifying patient himself or herself if the patient has not specified that a primary caregiver be allowed to cultivate the patient’s plants or the patient’s registered primary caregiver if the patient has specified that a primary caregiver be allowed to cultivate the patient’s plants.
2. The MMMA incorporates the definition of possession of controlled substances used in longstanding Michigan law. The essential inquiry is whether there is a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the contraband, including whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over it. In this case, defendant exercised dominion and control over all the marijuana plants seized from the warehouse space that he leased, given that he was actively engaged in growing all the marijuana in the facility; used his horticultural knowledge and expertise to oversee, care for, and cultivate all the marijuana growing there; and had the ability to remove any or all of the plants given his unimpeded access to the warehouse space. For defendant, who was connected to two qualifying patients through the MDCH’s registration process, § 4(b) permitted him to possess no more than 24 plants. Because defendant clearly possessed more plants than allowed under § 4 and possessed plants on behalf of patients with whom he was not connected through the state’s registration process, defendant was not entitled to § 4 immunity.
3. Because § 4 limits both the amount of marijuana that any individual may possess and who may possess any marijuana plant, for a patient or caregiver to receive immunity under § 4, the enclosed, locked facility housing marijuana plants required by MCL 333.26423(c) and MCL 333.26424(b)(2) must be such that it allows only one person to possess the marijuana plants enclosed therein: the registered qualifying patient himself or herself if the patient has not specified that a primary caregiver be allowed to cultivate the patient’s marijuana plants or the patient’s registered primary caregiver if the patient has specified that a primary caregiver be allowed to cultivate the patient’s plants.
4. To establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8 of the MMMA, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b), exists, the defendant is entitled to dismissal of criminal charges. In this case, although defendant reserved the right to assert a § 8 defense, he had not done so. Given that defendant had not yet proceeded to trial, he still had the opportunity to assert the defense in a motion to dismiss.
Court of Appeals’ judgment affirmed with regard to immunity under § 4 of the MMMA, reversed to the extent that it held that defendant was precluded from asserting a defense under § 8 of the MMMA, and case remanded for further proceedings.
©2012 State of Michigan
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
