## Facts

- Police obtained a search warrant after receiving a report that Michael Tate was selling narcotics from his parents’ home to local high school students.
- During a March 29, 1983 search of Tate’s bedroom, officers recovered a large quantity of marijuana, a scale, paraphernalia, and money.
- Tate was a quadriplegic who suffered severe muscle spasticity, sometimes rendering him completely disabled.
- Tate asserted marijuana relieved his spasticity and that prescribed medications did not provide comparable relief.
- He sought to present a “medical necessity” justification defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:3-2(a) to a charge of possessing more than 25 grams of marijuana under N.J.S.A. 24:21-20(a)(4).

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with marijuana possession may assert a common-law or statutory necessity (“medical necessity”) defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:3-2(a) despite statutory provisions classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance with no accepted medical use.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division.
- The court granted the State’s motion to strike Tate’s proposed necessity defense.
- Tate was barred from presenting a medical-necessity justification to the marijuana-possession charge.

## Legal Principles

- A general justification/necessity statute does not authorize a judicial exception that conflicts with a specific, comprehensive legislative scheme governing the same conduct.
- When the Legislature has expressly classified a controlled substance as Schedule I and declared it has no accepted medical use, courts may not recognize “medical necessity” to negate criminal liability for possession.
- Determinations about accepted medical uses of controlled substances and any exceptions or safeguards are policy judgments committed to the Legislature and designated administrative processes, not case-by-case adjudication in criminal trials.
- Where statutory mechanisms exist to reconsider scheduling or permit controlled medical use, those avenues—not a necessity defense—are the proper means to seek change.

## Conclusion

The court held that New Jersey’s statutory classification of marijuana and its comprehensive regulation foreclosed a medical-necessity defense to marijuana possession, leaving any medical-use exceptions to legislative or administrative action rather than judicial creation.


State v. Tate, 505 A.2d 941 (N.J. 1986)