Summary
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not categorically immunize registered medical-marijuana patients from prosecution for driving with marijuana or its impairing metabolite in their bodies under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3). Instead, the Act provides an affirmative defense when the patient proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the marijuana or metabolite was present in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment. The court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the petitioners’ convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act immunizes a registered qualifying patient from prosecution under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3) for driving with marijuana or its impairing metabolite in the body.
- Whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act provides a registered qualifying patient with an affirmative defense to an A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3) charge when the marijuana or metabolite concentration was insufficient to cause impairment.
- Whether the medical-marijuana registry cards alone established the affirmative defense or rendered the trial court's evidentiary rulings prejudicial.
Holdings
- The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not categorically immunize a registered qualifying patient from prosecution under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3).
- A registered qualifying patient may establish an affirmative defense to an A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3) charge by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the marijuana use was authorized by the AMMA and that the marijuana or its impairing metabolite was present in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment.
- The registry cards alone did not establish the affirmative defense, and any error in excluding or precluding the cards was harmless because the petitioners stipulated that marijuana and its impairing metabolite were present while driving and offered no evidence that the concentrations were insufficient to cause impairment.
Key quotations
“We today hold that the AMMA does not immunize a medical marijuana cardholder from prosecution under § 28-1381(A)(3), but instead affords an affirmative defense if the cardholder shows that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment.” (238 Ariz. at 389 ¶ 2)
“The patient may establish an affirmative defense to such a charge by showing that his or her use was authorized by the AMMA — which is subject to the rebuttable presumption under § 36-2811(A)(2) — and that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment.” (238 Ariz. at 393 ¶ 20)
“Rather than shielding registered qualifying patients from any prosecution under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3), the AMMA affords an affirmative defense for those patients who can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the concentration of marijuana or its impairing metabolite in their bodies was insufficient to cause impairment.” (238 Ariz. at 394 ¶ 23)
Factual background
Dobson and Anderson were charged with driving with marijuana or its impairing metabolite in their bodies under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3). Blood tests showed that each had marijuana and its impairing metabolite in the body. Dobson possessed an Oregon medical-marijuana card and Anderson possessed an Arizona medical-marijuana card, but neither offered evidence that the marijuana concentration was insufficient to cause impairment.
Procedural history
Dobson and Anderson were each charged with DUI under A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1) and (A)(3). The municipal court excluded or precluded evidence of their medical-marijuana registry cards, the State dismissed the (A)(1) counts, and each petitioner was convicted of the (A)(3) count on a stipulated record. The superior court affirmed, and the court of appeals denied special-action relief. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and affirmed the convictions.