State v. Middlekauff
| Citation | 974 N.W.2d 781 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-0664 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Pamela Mildred MIDDLEKAUFF, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Katherine Sears (argued) of Clark and Sears Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
In this case, we visit whether an out-of-state registry card allowing its cardholder to legally purchase and possess medical marijuana in that state and the written certification necessary to get the card are a valid prescription or order of a practitioner to constitute an affirmative defense under Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2019). An out-of-state defendant was driving through Iowa when an Iowa trooper stopped her for speeding. During the stop, the trooper smelled marijuana coming from the defendant's vehicle and asked if she had been smoking. She denied smoking marijuana but admitted possessing marijuana flowers. The defendant voluntarily gave the trooper her marijuana. She also provided the trooper with a current Patient Medical Marijuana Registry Identification Card issued by the Arizona Department of Health Services. This card allows her to legally purchase a limited amount of marijuana from an Arizona dispensary and possess that marijuana for medical use in Arizona. In obtaining this registry card, she filed an application with the Arizona Department of Health Services, which required a written certification completed by a licensed Arizona physician and other personal information. The written certification was not provided to the trooper at the time of the stop.
The defendant was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana under Iowa Code section 124.401(5). During pretrial motions, she argued that her registry card or the written certification completed by a physician was "a valid prescription or order of a practitioner" to satisfy an affirmative defense in section 124.401(5). The district court determined that the registry card and written certification were not a valid prescription or order and barred their admissions during the trial. A jury convicted the defendant of possession of marijuana.
On our review, we affirm the defendant's conviction because the registry card and written certification are not a valid prescription or order.
The defendant, Pamela Middlekauff, lives in Arizona. She suffers from osteoarthritis
in her right hand and degenerative joint disease in her left thumb that cause chronic pain. In July of 2018, Middlekauff applied for and was issued a Patient Medical Marijuana Registry Identification Card (registry card) from the Arizona Department of Health Services. Middlekauff's registry card allows her to purchase and possess marijuana products from Arizona dispensaries.
While driving through Iowa from Arizona on December 23, 2019, Middlekauff was stopped by Trooper Luke Valenta for speeding. Trooper Valenta approached the passenger side to obtain Middlekauff's driver information and smelled marijuana coming from her vehicle. He asked Middlekauff if she had smoked marijuana in the vehicle. She denied that she had smoked any marijuana but candidly admitted possessing "quite a bit of marijuana."
Trooper Valenta asked Middlekauff for the marijuana. Middlekauff voluntarily handed him a large open pouch, from underneath a blanket on the passenger seat, containing ten individual one-gram pouches of marijuana flowers. She told him again that the individual pouches contained marijuana and referred to the marijuana as her medicine. Middlekauff also provided Trooper Valenta with her registry card.
Trooper Valenta took the marijuana back to his car. Upon returning to Middlekauff's car, he issued citations for speeding and marijuana possession. He retained the marijuana flowers as evidence and allowed Middlekauff to leave, as she showed no signs of impairment. The State subsequently charged Middlekauff by trial information with possession of a controlled substance under Iowa Code section 124.401(5). Middlekauff pleaded not guilty.
Middlekauff filed several pretrial motions. The first two motions claimed dismissal was required because the marijuana "was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner" under section 124.401(5) or that the registry card was entitled to reciprocity under section 124E.18 of Iowa's Medical Cannabidiol Act. Middlekauff also filed a motion to suppress the marijuana, arguing Trooper Valenta lacked probable cause to seize the marijuana after she presented her registry card to him. The State resisted. The district court denied each of these motions, and we denied interlocutory appeal.
Middlekauff then filed a third motion to dismiss, reiterating claims previously made as well as adding new claims, including: defects in the trial information, the prosecution lacked probable cause, section 124.401(5) was impermissibly vague, and equal protection challenges. The State resisted. The district court denied her third motion to dismiss and we again denied interlocutory appeal.
Before the jury trial, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude any reference to the registry card as well as related Arizona statutes. Middlekauff also filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony from the state's Department of Criminal Investigations (DCI) analyst and any lab report written by the analyst. The district court ruled that there would be no mention of either the registry card or Arizona statutes. Furthermore, the district court declined to exclude the DCI analyst's testimony or the lab report.
Before the trial began, Middlekauff's counsel presented an offer of proof with testimony by Middlekauff and Trooper Valenta to explain how the exclusion of the registry card and relevant Arizona statutes violated her constitutional rights and ability to conduct a defense. At trial, the jury heard testimony from DCI analyst Megan Reedy, Trooper Valenta, and Middlekauff. The jury returned with a guilty verdict and the district court sentenced Middlekauff later that same day upon her request for immediate sentencing. Middlekauff filed a timely appeal, which we retained.
We review statutory interpretation issues and motions to dismiss trial information for correction of errors at law. State v. Wilson , 941 N.W.2d 579, 584 (Iowa 2020) ; State v. Wells , 629 N.W.2d 346, 351 (Iowa 2001) (en banc). We review decisions regarding the admission of testimony beyond the scope of the minutes of testimony and chain of custody issues for an abuse of discretion. State v. Braun , 495 N.W.2d 735, 741 (Iowa 1993) ; State v. Bakker , 262 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Iowa 1978). Finally, we review constitutional issues de novo. Wilson , 941 N.W.2d at 585.
Middlekauff presents various challenges on appeal. First, she claims that her registry card or written certification satisfies the "valid prescription or order" affirmative defense under section 124.401(5). Alternatively, Middlekauff raises constitutional issues if the registry card or written certification does not meet the affirmative defense. Second, she raises two evidentiary issues related to whether the DCI analyst should have testified when the analyst's name was not provided in the minutes of testimony and whether chain of custody issues should have prevented the admission of the DCI lab report and marijuana.
A. Valid Prescription or Order Affirmative Defense and Related Challenges. Chapter 124 of the Iowa Code (Iowa CSA) mirrors 21 U.S.C. ch. 13, the Federal Controlled Substances Act (Federal CSA) to regulate the "control of certain drugs and other substances affecting the public health." State v. Gibbs , 239 N.W.2d 866, 867 (Iowa 1976) (quoting S.F. 1, 64th G.A., 1st Sess. ch. 148 (Iowa 1971)); see State v. Rasmussen , 213 N.W.2d 661, 665 (Iowa 1973). To regulate and control certain drugs, the Iowa Code and federal law classify drugs into separate schedules, I through V, based on the drug's potential for abuse and acceptable use for medical treatment or accepted safety in medical treatment. Iowa Code §§ 124.201 –212; see 21 U.S.C. § 812 ; see also State v. Bonjour , 694 N.W.2d 511, 512–13 (Iowa 2005). Drugs included in these schedules are called "controlled substances." Iowa Code § 124.101(5). Under both Iowa and federal law, marijuana was listed as a schedule I controlled substance at the time of Middlekauff's traffic stop and remains listed as such today. Compare Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(m ) (2019),1 and 21 U.S.C. § 812(c)(c)(10) (2019), with Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(m ) (2022), and 21 U.S.C. § 812(c)(c)(10) (2022).
"It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance ...." Iowa Code § 124.401(5) (2019); see 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2014). However, possession of a controlled substance is legal if it "was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of the practitioner's professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter." Iowa Code § 124.401(5) ; see 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). A valid prescription or order of a practitioner is an affirmative defense to possession of a controlled substance. Gibbs , 239 N.W.2d at 868. An out-of-state practitioner does not need to be registered with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy for ultimate users to possess a valid prescription or order for controlled substances. Cf. Rasmussen , 213 N.W.2d at 665–66.2
1. The valid prescription or order of a practitioner defense does not apply here. Neither the Iowa CSA nor the Federal CSA explicitly define "prescription" or "order." Iowa Code § 124.101 ; 21 U.S.C. § 802 ; but see 21 C.F.R. § 1300.01...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henry
...such intent is an element of the crime charged."). The trial court made no error in its statutory interpretion. See State v. Middlekauff, 974 N.W.2d 781, 790 (Iowa 2022) (noting review of statutory interpretation issues is for errors of law). III. Insanity Defense. Henry maintains the court......
-
State v. Sanchez
...objection to a DCI report and the substances supposedly tested for the report as a chain-of-custody objection. See State v. Middlekauff, 974 N.W.2d 781, 805-06 (Iowa 2022). We review a ruling on a chain-of-custody objection for abuse of discretion. See id. at 805. When considering the admis......
-
State v. Hurtt
......." [3] We note the district court did not have the benefit of State v. Middlekauff, an opinion issued recently by our supreme court. 974 N.W.2d 781 (2022). There, in a four-three decision, our supreme court rejected a defendant's claim that her Arizona medical marijuana registry identifi......