## Facts

- Richard Lee Hartwick was a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) and acted as his own primary caregiver and as caregiver for five registered qualifying patients to whom he was connected under the MMMA.
- Police searched Hartwick’s home with consent and found a disputed number of marijuana plants and about 3.69 ounces of usable marijuana.
- Hartwick was charged with manufacturing marijuana and possession with intent to deliver; he sought dismissal based on MMMA § 4 immunity and asserted an MMMA § 8 affirmative defense or, alternatively, permission to present § 8 at trial.
- The trial court denied § 4 immunity and denied and barred presentation of the § 8 defense; the Court of Appeals largely upheld those rulings.
- Robert Tuttle was a registered qualifying patient and acted as his own primary caregiver; his connection to one or two additional registered qualifying patients was unclear.
- Tuttle sold marijuana on three occasions to a person with whom he was not connected under the MMMA and was charged with delivery, manufacturing, possession with intent to deliver, and felony-firearm offenses.
- The trial court denied § 4 immunity on the theory that unprotected sales “tainted” other conduct and denied the § 8 defense for lack of prima facie evidence; the Court of Appeals largely affirmed.
- The Michigan Supreme Court consolidated the appeals to clarify the scope of MMMA §§ 4 and 8 and the proper procedure for adjudicating MMMA protections.

## Issues

1. What must a defendant prove to obtain MMMA § 4 immunity, and does possession of a registry identification card alone establish protected medical use?
2. What prima facie showing is required to present an MMMA § 8 affirmative defense, including proof of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, full assessment, and medical necessity?
3. Whether unprotected conduct can categorically “taint” and eliminate MMMA protections for other charged conduct.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that a registry identification card, standing alone, does not establish that marijuana-related conduct was for protected medical use under § 4 or medically justified under § 8.
- As to Hartwick, the Court agreed he failed to make a prima facie § 8 showing and therefore could be barred from presenting the § 8 defense at trial, but remanded for further factual determinations relevant to § 4 immunity.
- As to Tuttle, the Court rejected the “taint” theory; unprotected transactions do not automatically remove MMMA protection from other conduct, but Tuttle still failed to establish prima facie entitlement to a § 8 defense.
- The Court directed trial courts to address § 4 immunity first through factual findings and, if immunity does not apply, to then determine whether the defendant has made a sufficient prima facie showing to present a § 8 defense to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- MMMA § 4 provides conditional immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty if statutory requirements are met; it is not a general defense and is unavailable unless the defendant proves compliance.
- To establish § 4 immunity, a defendant must show (among other requirements) valid registry status, compliance with usable-marijuana and plant limits, plant storage in an enclosed locked facility, and that the conduct involved medical use.
- MMMA § 8 is a separate affirmative defense that may apply even when § 4 does not, but only if the defendant presents prima facie evidence of each statutory element.
- For § 8, prima facie proof must include a bona fide physician-patient relationship, a full assessment of medical history and current condition, and the physician’s professional opinion that the patient has a debilitating medical condition likely to benefit from medical marijuana.
- A registry card may satisfy the written certification component but does not, by itself, prove a bona fide relationship or a full assessment.
- MMMA protections require charge-specific analysis; unlawful conduct in one transaction does not automatically eliminate potential § 4 or § 8 protection for other, separable conduct.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court distinguished MMMA § 4 immunity from MMMA § 8’s affirmative defense, required defendants to prove specific statutory elements beyond mere registry-card status, rejected the categorical “taint” approach, and established a trial-court procedure that resolves § 4 immunity first and permits a § 8 defense at trial only upon a prima facie showing.


People v. Hartwick, 498 Mich. 192, 870 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2015)