## Facts

- Richard Lee Hartwick held a Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) registry identification card and claimed caregiver status for multiple registered qualifying patients.
- An Oakland County Sheriff’s detective received a tip that marijuana was being distributed from a Pontiac home owned by Hartwick’s father.
- On September 27, 2011, the detective met Hartwick outside the home; Hartwick acknowledged marijuana was inside and stated he was growing it in compliance with the MMMA, then led the detective into the house.
- Officers found numerous marijuana plants and quantities of dried marijuana throughout the residence, including reports of 77 live plants.
- Hartwick asserted the marijuana was for medical use by his registered patients, but he could not identify the debilitating medical conditions of at least two purported patients.
- Hartwick also did not know his patients’ expected marijuana usage amounts, treatment durations, or the names of their certifying physicians.
- The trial court found the prosecution rebutted any presumption that Hartwick’s conduct was for protected “medical use” and ruled he was not entitled to § 4 immunity and had not shown eligibility for a § 8 defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Hartwick’s MMMA registry identification card and claimed caregiver status entitled him to immunity from prosecution under § 4 of the MMMA.
2. Whether Hartwick made a sufficient evidentiary showing to obtain dismissal under § 8 of the MMMA or, at minimum, to present a § 8 affirmative defense at trial.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order.
- The court held Hartwick was not entitled to § 4 immunity because card possession does not automatically immunize marijuana production or possession; statutory conditions tied to medical use must be satisfied.
- The court held Hartwick failed to make the threshold evidentiary showing required to invoke § 8 because he lacked patient-specific facts necessary to show bona fide medical use and reasonable necessity.
- The trial court therefore properly denied dismissal and properly barred Hartwick from presenting a § 8 affirmative defense at trial on the existing record.

## Legal Principles

- MMMA protections are limited to marijuana production, possession, and use that are medical in nature and tied to treating a patient’s debilitating medical condition.
- A registry identification card creates, at most, a rebuttable presumption of lawful medical use; the prosecution may rebut it with evidence showing conduct is not compliant with the MMMA’s medical-use requirements or limits.
- § 4 immunity is conditional and requires compliance with statutory requirements; it is not conferred solely by card possession or generalized assertions of caregiving.
- To invoke § 8, a defendant must make a threshold evidentiary showing supporting the statutory elements, including physician-based medical purpose and that the amount possessed or cultivated was not more than reasonably necessary for uninterrupted treatment.
- A court may preclude a § 8 defense at trial when the defendant fails to present sufficient evidence on essential § 8 elements during the pretrial evidentiary stage.

## Conclusion

The court held that MMMA card possession did not, by itself, establish immunity under § 4, and that a defendant seeking § 8 protection must present concrete, patient-specific evidence supporting bona fide medical treatment and reasonable necessity; because Hartwick did not, the denial of dismissal and the bar on presenting a § 8 defense were affirmed.


People v. Hartwick, 303 Mich. App. 247, 842 N.W.2d 480 (2013)