State v. Kurtz, 176 Wn. 2d 466

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the common-law medical necessity defense remains available in marijuana prosecutions and was not abrogated by the Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act or by marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I controlled substance. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine whether William Kurtz presented sufficient evidence to support the defense, including whether compliance with the Act was a viable legal alternative. A dissent argued that the statutory medical-marijuana scheme eliminated the prerequisite lack of a legal alternative.

Holdings

1. The common law medical necessity defense remains available in marijuana prosecutions after enactment of the Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act, provided there is evidence supporting the defense.
2. Neither the legislature's classification of marijuana as a schedule I substance nor the court's decision in Seeley abrogated the common law medical necessity defense.
3. The mere existence of the Medical Use of Marijuana Act does not foreclose the common law medical necessity defense, but compliance with the Act may be considered in determining whether the defendant had a viable legal alternative.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Washington's common law medical necessity defense remains available in a prosecution involving marijuana after enactment of the Medical Use of Marijuana Act.
2. Whether the legislature's classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance, and the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Seeley v. State, abrogated the common law medical necessity defense.
3. Whether the Medical Use of Marijuana Act superseded or abrogated the common law medical necessity defense.
4. Whether the existence of the statutory medical marijuana scheme constitutes a legal alternative relevant to, but dispositive of, the common law necessity defense.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded