State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 28 May 2019
• Docket Number: No. CR-18-0370-PR,CR-18-0370-PR
• Citation: 246 Ariz. 452,440 P.3d 1139
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Rodney Christopher JONES, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

246 Ariz. 452

440 P.3d 1139

STATE of Arizona, Appellee,

v.Rodney Christopher JONES, Appellant.

No. CR-18-0370-PR

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed May 28, 2019

Sheila Polk, Yavapai County Attorney, Dennis M. McGrane, Chief Deputy County Attorney, Benjamin D. Kreutzberg (argued), Deputy County Attorney, Prescott, Attorneys for State of Arizona

Robert A. Mandel (argued), Taylor C. Young, Mandel Young PLC, Phoenix; and Lee Stein, Anna H. Finn, Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman, PC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Rodney Christopher Jones

Sarah L. Mayhew, Tucson, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice; and Thomas W. Dean, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

Eric M. Fraser, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Dispensaries Association

Gary Michael Smith, Smith Saks, PLC, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Will Humble

Gaye L. Gould, Janet E. Jackim, Philip R. Rudd, Sacks Tierney P.A., Scottsdale, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Physicians

Sharon A. Urias, Greenspoon Marder LLP, Scottsdale; and John H. Pelzer, Greenspoon Marder LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae MPX Bioceutical Corporation

Jared G. Keenan, Kathleen E. Brody, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix; and Emma A. Andersson, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Qualifying Patients and Caregivers

Elizabeth Burton Ortiz, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council

Alex Lane, Lane, Hupp, Crowley, PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Jennifer Welton and Alex Lane

Kathi Mann Sandweiss, Lawrence E. Wilk, Thomas S. Moring, Jaburg & Wilk, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Receiver for Green Hills Patient Center, Inc.

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES and JUSTICES TIMMER, BOLICK, GOULD, LOPEZ, and PELANDER (Retired) joined.

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, opinion of the Court:

¶1 Rodney Christopher Jones appeals his convictions and sentences arising from his possession of hashish, a form of cannabis resin, A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(4)(a), -3408(A)(1), arguing that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA") immunizes his conduct. AMMA defines marijuana as including "all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not." A.R.S. § 36-2801(8). Consistent with this language, we hold that AMMA’s definition of marijuana includes both its dried-leaf/flower form and extracted resin, including hashish.

I.

¶2 In March 2013, Jones—a registered qualifying patient under AMMA—was found in possession of a jar containing 1.43 grams, or 0.050 ounces, of hashish. Jones was charged with possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia (the jar). As defined by Arizona’s criminal code, cannabis is a narcotic drug, § 13-3401(20)(w), consisting of "[t]he resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin," § 13-3401(4)(a).

¶3 Jones moved to dismiss the charges, arguing his use was allowed under AMMA. Relying on State v. Bollander , 110 Ariz. 84, 515 P.2d 329 (1973), the State argued that AMMA does not displace the criminal code distinctions between cannabis, § 13-3401(4)(a), and marijuana, § 13-3401(19), and that AMMA only provides a defense for the use of marijuana from which the resin has not been extracted. Agreeing with the State, the trial court denied Jones’s motion. After a bench trial, Jones was convicted as charged and sentenced to concurrent 2.5-year prison terms.

¶4 The court of appeals affirmed Jones’s convictions in a divided opinion, holding that AMMA did not immunize his possession of cannabis. State v. Jones , 245 Ariz. 46, 49–50 ¶¶ 9–15, 424 P.3d 447, 450–456 (App. 2018). We granted review to determine whether AMMA immunizes cannabis, a recurring issue of statewide importance. We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution.

II.

¶5 "We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo." Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt , 237 Ariz. 119, 122 ¶ 6, 347 P.3d 136, 139 (2015). Because AMMA was passed by voter initiative, our primary objective "is to give effect to the intent of the electorate." Id. (quoting State v. Gomez , 212 Ariz. 55, 57 ¶ 11, 127 P.3d 873, 875 (2006) ). The most reliable indicator of that intent is the language of the statute, and if it is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and the inquiry ends. State v. Burbey , 243 Ariz. 145, 147 ¶ 7, 403 P.3d 145, 147 (2017).

¶6 Passed in 2010, "AMMA permits those who meet statutory conditions to use medical marijuana." Reed-Kaliher , 237 Ariz. at 122 ¶ 7, 347 P.3d at 139. AMMA does so by "broadly immuniz[ing] qualified patients" for their medical marijuana use and by "carving out only narrow exceptions from its otherwise sweeping grant of immunity." Id. ¶ 8 (citing A.R.S. § 36-2811(B) ). Specifically, AMMA provides protection "[f]or the registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, [so long as] the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana." § 36-2811(B)(1). AMMA defines "marijuana" to mean "all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant." § 36-2801(8).

¶7 The court of appeals’ majority determined that voters only intended to immunize the use of marijuana as defined by the criminal code, meaning the dried leaves or flowers of the cannabis plant, but not the use of cannabis, the resin extracted from the marijuana plant. Jones , 245 Ariz. at 49 ¶ 9, 424 P.3d at 450 ("[B]y not specifically including extracted resin within its description of immunized marijuana, AMMA adopts the preexisting law distinguishing between cannabis and marijuana." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also § 13-3401(19) (defining "marijuana" to mean "all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis, from which the resin has not been extracted"); cf. Bollander , 110 Ariz. at 87, 515 P.2d at 332 (concluding "that the legislature has recognized hashish and marijuana as two distinct forms of cannabis"). We disagree.

¶8 We start with the statutory language. Because AMMA specifically defines "marijuana," we apply the statutory definition and look to neither the criminal code nor common understanding. See Enloe v. Baker , 94 Ariz. 295, 298, 383 P.2d 748, 750 (1963). Indeed, AMMA’s definition of "marijuana" stands on its own: it neither cross-references nor incorporates the criminal code definition. Cf. State v. Pirello , 365 Mont. 399, 282 P.3d 662, 663–65 ¶¶ 11–18 (2012) (recognizing that the Montana Medical Marijuana Act cross-references and incorporates the criminal code distinction between marijuana and hashish).

¶9 AMMA defines "marijuana" as "all parts of [the] plant." § 36-2801(8). The word "all," one of the most comprehensive words in the English language, means exactly that. See Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa Cty. v. Gaines , 202 Ariz. 248, 252 ¶ 9, 43 P.3d 196, 200 (2002). "Part" means "an essential portion or integral element," or, as relevant here, "one of the constituent elements of a plant or animal body." Part , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/part (last visited May 20, 2019). Taken together, "all parts" refers to all constituent elements of the marijuana plant, and the fact the resin must first be extracted from the plant reflects that it is part of the plant.

¶10 The State nevertheless argues AMMA does not apply to resin or its extracts. Again, we disagree. Section 36-2811(B)(1) immunizes the patient’s "medical use" of marijuana, defined to mean "the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture , use, administration, delivery, transfer or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marijuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition." § 36-2801(9) (emphasis added). AMMA does not define "manufacture" but it commonly means "to make into a product suitable for use." Manufacture , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manufacture (last visited May 20, 2019); see also § 13-3401(17) (defining "manufacture" in the criminal code as to "produce, prepare, propagate, compound, mix or process, directly or indirectly, by extraction from substances of natural origin or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis" (emphasis added)). AMMA anticipates not only that dispensaries will produce marijuana in edible form, see § 36-2801(15) (defining "usable marijuana" to include mixtures or preparations, to be "prepared for consumption as food or drink"), but also that patients will "consume[ marijuana] by a method other than smoking," see A.R.S. § 36-2805(A)(3). Taken together, these statutes indicate AMMA’s intent to allow the manufacture and preparation of parts of the marijuana plant for medical use, including extracting the resin.

¶11 We are likewise unpersuaded by the State’s argument that §§ 36-2811(B)(1) and 36-2801(1), (15) limit marijuana use to dried flowers. Section 36-2811(B)(1) provides that a registered qualifying patient may not possess more "than the allowable amount of marijuana." Section 36-2801(1) provides that the allowable amount of marijuana is two-and-one-half ounces of "usable marijuana," which § 36-2801(15) defines as "the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant and does not include the weight of any non-marijuana ingredients combined with marijuana and prepared for consumption as food or drink." The State argues that by conjunction these provisions limit marijuana use to "dried flowers." See People v. Carruthers , 301 Mich.App. 590, 837...