People v. Bylsma, Docket No. 144120.

• Decision Date: 19 December 2012
• Docket Number: Docket No. 144120.
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ryan Michael BYLSMA, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

493 Mich. 17

825 N.W.2d 543

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Ryan Michael BYLSMA, Defendant–Appellant.

Docket No. 144120.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Oct. 11, 2012.

Decided Dec. 19, 2012.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, William A. Forsyth, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy K. McMorrow, Chief Appellate Attorney, and Gary A. Moore, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Bruce Alan Block PLC, Grand Rapids (by Bruce A. Block), for defendant.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Richard A. Bandstra, Chief Legal Counsel, and Jennifer Clark, Assistant Attorney General, for Amicus Curiae the Attorney General.

Gerald A. Fisher, for Amicus Curiae the Michigan Municipal League and the Public Corporation Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.

David P. Cahill, Ann Arbor, Dennis M. Hayes, and Rosemary G. Pánuco, for Amicus Curiae the Ann Arbor Medical Cannabis Guild, Inc.

Opinion

YOUNG, C.J.

In this prosecution for the manufacture of marijuana in violation of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7401(1) and (2)(d), we must determine whether § 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) ¹ provides a registered primary caregiver with immunity when growing marijuana collectively with other registered primary caregivers and registered qualifying patients. We hold that § 4 does not contemplate such collective action. As a result, defendant is not entitled to its grant of immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it concluded that defendant was not entitled to § 4 immunity.

The MMMA authorizes “[t]he medical use of marihuana ... to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with [its] provisions....” ² In order to receive immunity under § 4, a registered primary caregiver may not possess more than 12 marijuana plants for each qualifying patient to whom he is connected through the state's registration process. We agree with the Court of Appeals that defendantexercised dominion and control over all the plants in the warehouse space that he leased, not merely the plants in which he claimed an ownership interest. Section 4 does not allow the collective action that defendant has undertaken because only one of two people may possess marijuana plants pursuant to §§ 4(a) and 4(b): a registered qualifying patient or the primary caregiver with whom the qualifying patient is connected through the registration process of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH). Because defendant possessed more plants than § 4 allows and he possessed plants on behalf of patients with whom he was not connected through the MDCH's registration process, defendant is not entitled to § 4 immunity.

In addition to immunity under § 4, the MMMA created a second protection for primary caregivers of medical marijuana patients: an affirmative defense from prosecution under § 8.³ The Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that defendant was not entitled to assert the § 8 affirmative defense solely because he did not satisfy the possession limits of § 4. Rather, in People v. Kolanek, we held that a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 immunity in order to establish the elements of the § 8 defense.⁴ Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment to the extent that it conflicts with Kolanek. However, it would be premature for this Court to determine whether defendant has in fact satisfied the elements of the § 8 defense because he has not formally asserted the § 8 defense in a motion to dismiss. Instead, he has simply reserved the right to raise a § 8 defense at a later time. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Kolanek.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pursuant to § 6 of the MMMA, a qualifying patient and his primary caregiver, if any, can apply to the MDCH for a registry identification card. ⁵ Defendant Ryan Bylsma did so and, at all relevant times for the purposes of this appeal, was registered with the MDCH as the primary caregiver for two registered qualifying medical marijuana patients. He leased commercial warehouse space in Grand Rapids and equipped that space both to grow marijuana for his two patients and to allow him to assist other qualifying patients and primary caregivers in growing marijuana.⁶ A single lock secured the warehouse space, which was divided into three separate booths. The booths were latched but not locked, and defendant moved plants between the booths depending on the growing conditions that each plant required. Defendant spent 5 to 7 days each week at the warehouse space, where he oversaw and cared for the plants' growth. Sometimes, defendant's brother would help defendant care for and cultivate the plants. Defendant had access to the warehouse space at all times, although defense counsel acknowledged that two others also had access to the space.

In September 2011, a Grand Rapids city inspector forced entry into defendant's warehouse space after he noticed illegal electrical lines running along water lines.⁷ The inspector notified Grand Rapids police of the marijuana that was growing there. The police executed a search warrant and seized approximately 86 to 88 plants.⁸ Defendant claims ownership of 24 of the seized plants and asserts that the remaining plants belong to the other qualifying patients and registered caregivers whom he was assisting.

Defendant was charged with manufacturing marijuana in violation of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7401(1) and (2)(d), subject to an enhanced sentence under MCL 333.7413 for a subsequent controlled substances offense.⁹ Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under the MMMA's grant of immunity in § 4, claiming that he possessed 24 of the seized plants, that other registered qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers owned the remaining plants, and that all of them used the warehouse space as a common enclosed, locked facility. Defendant also reserved the right to raise the affirmative defense provided by § 8 of the MMMA. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Kent Circuit Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that § 4 of the MMMA requires each registered qualifying patient's plants to be “kept in an enclosed, locked facility that can only be accessed by one individual....” Furthermore, the court held that because defendant had not complied with § 4, he was not entitled to raise an affirmative defense under § 8.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision. ¹⁰ The panel determined that defendant possessed all the seized marijuana plants because “[h]e knew of the presence and character of the plants and he exercised dominion and control over them.” ¹¹ The panel explained that § 4 immunity only permits a registered primary caregiver to possess up to 12 plants for each qualifying patient to whom he is connected through the MDCH's registration process. The panel concluded 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 that he was not connected to through the MDCH's registration process[.]” ¹² Finally, the panel held that defendant's failure to meet the requirements of § 4 immunity made him ineligible to raise the § 8 defense.¹³

This Court ordered oral argument on defendant's application for leave to appeal, asking that the parties address the following:

(1) whether the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., permits qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana in a collective or cooperative and (2) whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to immunity from prosecution for manufacturing marijuana under § 4 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26424, or entitled to dismissal of the manufacturing charge under the affirmative defense in § 8 of the act, MCL 333.26428.¹⁴

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review for an abuse of discretion a circuit court's ruling on a motion to dismiss ¹⁵ but review de novo the circuit court's rulings on underlying questions regarding the interpretation of the MMMA,¹⁶ which the people enacted by initiative in November 2008. ¹⁷ “[T]he intent of the electors governs” the interpretation of voter-initiated statutes,¹⁸ just as the intent of the Legislature governs the interpretation of legislatively enacted statutes.¹⁹ A statute's plain language provides “ ‘the most reliable evidence of ... intent....’ ” ²⁰ “If the statutory language is unambiguous, ... ‘[n]o further judicial construction is required or permitted’ ” because we must conclude that the electors “ ‘intended the meaning clearly expressed.’ ” ²¹

A trial court's findings of fact may not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.²² A ruling is clearly erroneous “if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” ²³

III. ANALYSIS

A. THE MMMA

Michigan voters approved the MMMA in November 2008. As a result, 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. ²⁴ This Court first interpreted the MMMA in Kolanek and emphasized that the MMMA exists only as an exception to, and not a displacement of, the Public Health Code:

The MMMA does not create a general right for individuals to use and possess marijuana in Michigan. Possession, manufacture, and delivery of marijuana remain punishable offenses under Michigan law. Rather, the MMMA's protections are limited to individuals suffering from serious or debilitating medical conditions or symptoms, to the extent that the individuals' marijuana use “is carried out in accordance with the provisions...