Opinion

People of Michigan v. Raymond Charles Colville

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed: Nov 29, 2018
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 6.5%

holding that the proper focus is not on where the gun was at the time of the police raid, but on where it was during the commission of the felony

How later courts described this case

holding that the proper focus is not on where the gun was at the time of the police raid, but on where it was during the commission of the felony

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED

November 29, 2018

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 336405

Oakland Circuit Court

RAYMOND CHARLES COLVILLE, LC No. 2015-255034-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: MURRAY, C.J., and METER and GLEICHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of one count of manufacturing

marijuana over 45 kilos, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(i), one count of possession of a firearm during the

commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b(1), and two counts of maintaining a

drug house, MCL 333.7405(1)(d). Defendant was sentenced to 2 to 15 years for manufacturing

marijuana, two years for felony-firearm, and 270 days for each count of maintaining a drug

house. We affirm.

I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 8, 2015, Ferndale Police Officer Antonio Proulx was dispatched to 695

Livernois because Jill Robinson of the Oakland County Treasurer’s office had called the

Ferndale police to report an illegal marijuana growing operation at that address. As part of her

report, Robinson stated that the house was owned by Oakland County, and granted the police

permission to enter the house. When Officer Proulx arrived, he detected a strong odor of

marijuana from the sidewalk, and noticed an air conditioning unit operating in a basement

window. He then entered the house through the open garage door, and proceeded to the

basement through an unlocked door. In three separate rooms in the basement, Officer Proulx

saw multiple marijuana plants in various stages of growth. He also saw a Ferndale citation

posted on the front door, citing “Ray Colville” at 420 St. Louis Street in Ferndale for having left

the windows boarded up for several months. Officer Proulx notified his supervisor, who called

the Oakland County Narcotics Enforcement Team (NET).

Detective Matt Goebel, Ferndale’s NET officer, called another NET member, Detective

Paul Kinal of the Southfield Police Department, and asked him to proceed to the Livernois

address. Detective Kinal met with Officer Proulx when he arrived, and then walked around the

house on the sidewalk. He testified that the windows were boarded up, and the house appeared

-1-

to have fire damage and be vacant. He saw that there was a garage attached to the house by a

breezeway, and noticed an air conditioning vent near the breezeway, as well as a strong odor of

marijuana. Detective Kinal proceeded to enter the house through the open garage door, opened a

door that led to the breezeway, and continued through a door in the breezeway that led to the

basement. In the garage was a 1975 Lincoln, with a registration in the glove box listing

defendant as the owner, and his address as 420 St. Louis Street. There were boxes of documents

in the breezeway, several of which also listed defendant’s address as 420 St. Louis Street. When

Detective Kinal entered the basement, he also saw three rooms containing a large number of

marijuana plants in various stages of growth, along with fans and high-density lights.

When Detective Goebel arrived at 695 Livernois, he talked to the officers already there

before completing his affidavit for a search warrant, which included some information about

what they had already found at the scene. The NET team found and removed a total of 70 plants,

which were later tested and determined to be marijuana. Based on the evidence seized at 695

Livernois, Detective Goebel obtained a search warrant for the address listed as defendant’s

home—420 St. Louis. There, the officers found 75 marijuana plants in the basement and seven

in the backyard, some marijuana in a box and a jar, and drug paraphernalia such as scales, pipes,

and a butane dispenser. They also found three cell phones, multiple keys in the kitchen

cupboard—some labeled with addresses—an Oakland County tax receipt showing that defendant

had paid taxes on five properties (including 695 Livernois) the previous month, and a.40-caliber

Glock handgun, which was registered to defendant, under the mattress of the only bed in the

house. According to Detective Goebel and another officer who interviewed defendant, defendant

told them that he lived at 420 St. Louis and the plants there were his. He said he owned 695

Livernois, but the marijuana there belonged to a friend, whom he had required to move out the

month before for stealing plants. Finally, he told the officers that he helped his mother grow

plants at a vacant house at 23040 Manistee, where she kept 60 plants.

Detective Goebel then obtained a search warrant for 23040 Manistee, where they found

and confiscated exactly 60 plants in the basement. A total of 200 plants of the 212 confiscated

were tested and found to have a separate root system and to contain Delta 9 THC as the active

ingredient.

II. MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress, as

well as his request for a Franks1 hearing, included therein. We review a trial court’s decision

whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, including a Franks hearing, for an abuse of discretion.

People v Franklin, 500 Mich 92, 100; 894 NW2d 561 (2017). “ ‘A trial court necessarily abuses

its discretion when it makes an error of law.’ ” Id., quoting Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass’n, 499

Mich 269, 274; 884 NW2d 257 (2016). Whether a defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing is an

issue of constitutional law. Franklin, 500 Mich at 102-103, citing Franks v Delaware, 438 US

154; 98 S Ct 2674; 57 L Ed 2d 667 (1978). We review constitutional questions de novo. People

v McCuller, 479 Mich 672, 681; 739 NW2d 563 (2007).

Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154; 98 S Ct 2674; 57 L Ed 2d 667 (1978).

-2-

A criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to a hearing to challenge the truth of

statements made by an affiant in support of a search warrant if the defendant can make a

substantial preliminary showing that the affiant either engaged in a deliberate falsehood or

exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth. Franks, 438 US at 155-156. A substantial

preliminary showing requires allegations that the affiant made specific statements in the affidavit

that were deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, an offer of proof, a

statement of supporting reasons, and either affidavits or sworn statements of witnesses, or a

satisfactory explanation for their absence. Franklin, 500 Mich at 103, citing Franks, 438 US at

171-172. If the defendant fails to make this showing, he is not entitled to a Franks hearing.

Franklin, 500 Mich at 103.

In Franklin, the police officer’s affidavit stated that the affiant had received information

from a confidential informant, who had provided reliable information in other cases, that there

was marijuana trafficking occurring at a certain address. Among other things, the officer stated

that he had set up surveillance and observed five unknown people within 30 minutes walking up

to the main front entry door, being let in through a security gate, and leaving within one minute.

Franklin, 500 Mich at 95-96. The defendant’s sole offer of proof in support of his request for a

Franks hearing was “his own affidavit stating that his front door had a locked security gate that

required a key and had not been used in approximately six months.” Id. at 97. The trial court

found that the defendant had failed to make the necessary substantial showing, but nonetheless

granted the Franks hearing because the affiant had failed to supply sufficient information to

show that the confidential informant was credible. Id. at 97-98.

On appeal, a panel of this Court agreed with the trial court that the defendant in Franklin

was not constitutionally entitled to a Franks hearing because he failed to make the required

substantial preliminary showing. People v Franklin, unpublished per curiam opinion of the

Court of Appeals, issued October 20, 2015 (Docket No. 322655), p 4. Additionally, however,

the panel decided that the trial court had abused its discretion by holding the hearing despite that

failure. Id. The Supreme Court did not disturb the panel’s holding that the defendant in

Franklin had failed to make the required substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing,

but instead held that a trial court may exercise its discretion and grant a Franks hearing even

when a defendant is not constitutionally entitled to a hearing. Franklin, 500 Mich at 110-111.

In the instant case, defendant failed to offer any proof whatsoever in support of his initial

request for a Franks hearing, beyond his unsupported allegations. The only exhibits attached to

the motion to suppress were the four affidavits and four search warrants obtained for each of the

different properties purportedly owned by defendant. And defendant included no evidence of

any kind in support of his allegation that Detective Goebel had either engaged in a deliberate

falsehood or exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth. Because defendant offered nothing

beyond conclusory allegations, he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that

Detective Goebel’s statement about the ownership of the house was deliberately false or made

with reckless disregard for the truth. Therefore, defendant was not constitutionally entitled to a

Franks hearing, and the trial court did not err in denying his request.

We next address defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s

motion to suppress because the original entry into 695 Livernois was unlawful, as no warrant

existed. But even if we assume the validity of this argument, we hold that the trial court did not

-3-

err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress because the evidence would inevitably have been

discovered even if the officers had not entered the house when they did.

We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence, including any

underlying issues of law, de novo. People v Mullen, 282 Mich App 14, 21; 762 NW2d 170

(2008). The factual findings underlying the trial court’s decision are reviewed for clear error.

People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 297; 721 NW2d 815 (2006), aff’d 482 Mich 851 (2008).

“The inevitable discovery exception generally permits admission of tainted evidence

when the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information

ultimately or inevitably would have been revealed in the absence of police misconduct.” People

v Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich 626, 637; 597 NW2d 53 (1999). The purpose of the

exclusionary rule is not “to put the prosecution in a worse position than if the police officers’

improper conduct had not occurred, but, rather, it is to prevent the prosecutor from being in a

better position because of that conduct.” Id. at 640-641. When evidence inevitably would have

been discovered, admitting the evidence does not put the prosecution in a better position that it

would have been had the police initially provided all the necessary information to establish

probable cause, but excluding it would put the prosecution in a worse position than it would have

been absent any misconduct. Id. at 642.

The inevitable discovery doctrine applies here because, had Detective Goebel

investigated the possibility or likelihood of an illegal grow further before the officers entered the

property, he almost certainly would have established probable cause to enter. Officer Proulx

testified at trial that he was the first officer on the scene, that when he walked around the house

on the public sidewalks he smelled a strong odor of marijuana, and that the house appeared

abandoned despite a working air conditioning unit in the basement window.2 Assuming Officer

Proulx had the requisite training, this alone would have established probable cause. See

generally People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 421-422; 605 NW2d 667 (2000), and

specifically as to the smell of marijuana emanating from a home, see United States v Elkins, 300

F3d 638, 659-660 (CA 6, 2002), citing United States v Tobin, 923 F2d 1506, 1512 & n 4 (CA 11,

1991). Consequently, we conclude that the marijuana in the home would have been inevitably

discovered based on the independently, and legally obtained, information regarding the

circumstances at the house.

III. IMPARTIAL JURY/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Defendant next argues that he was denied his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury

when the trial court failed to investigate further a report that a juror had spoken to a court clerk

about a witness during a lunch break. And he asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to request a hearing or move for a mistrial on this basis.

According to the officers, the house had numerous windows boarded up and appeared to have

fire damage in several locations.

-4-

Because defendant failed to raise either issue below, both issues are unpreserved. We

review unpreserved, nonstructural issues of constitutional law for plain error affecting substantial

rights.3 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). “To avoid forfeiture

under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the

error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” Id. at

763. A ruling that contradicts clearly established law is plain error. Id. at 770. An error shows

prejudice when it affects the outcome of the proceedings in the lower court. Id at 763. The

burden of establishing these three elements is on the defendant. Id. at 763. Once a defendant

meets this burden of proof, the appellate court must still decide whether reversal is warranted.

Reversal is warranted if the error resulted in an innocent person being convicted, or had a serious

effect on the “fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation

marks and citation omitted).

A. JUROR MISCONDUCT

In this case, the jurors were dismissed for lunch at the close of proofs. When court was

once again in session, the trial court addressed the jurors as follows:

Please be seated. Before we start, Ladies and Gentlemen, one of my clerks

indicated to me that . . . one of the jurors was behind her in the line . . . in the

cafeteria downstairs, and that juror tapped my clerk’s shoulder . . . and said . . . a

comment[] on a witness. She indicated she could not talk to the juror, obviously,

about the case.

So, just as a reminder, she’s not being rude. She’s been instructed, just like

the attorneys have been instructed, the parties have been instructed, the officers,

that they are not to speak to any of you. You’re not to speak to them. It would be

improper to get any information or commentary or anything. So it’s just a

reminder that—to please not talk to anyone about the case until you are

deliberating in the jury room, and then you’re only to talk amongst yourselves.

And to not let us know what’s going on until you have a verdict or unless there’s

a question.”

Defendant argues that the alleged error regarding juror misconduct constitutes structural error.

Structural errors are not subject to the harmless error analysis but require automatic reversal.

People v Graves, 458 Mich 476, 482; 581 NW2d 229 (1998). Structural errors have been found

only in cases of “complete denial of counsel, a biased trial judge, racial discrimination in the

selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and

defective reasonable-doubt instructions.” People v Cain, 498 Mich 108, 117 n 4; 869 NW2d 829

(2015). Additionally, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that juror misconduct in the form of

lying about one’s qualification to be a juror is not structural. Id., citing People v Miller, 482

Mich 540, 556; 759 NW2d 850 (2008). Thus, the issue of whether to question jurors is not

structural.

-5-

Defendant did not object or ask the trial court to question the jurors. The trial court then

proceeded with closing arguments.

All criminal defendants have a constitutional right to “a speedy and public trial, by an

impartial jury.” US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20. See also People v Miller, 482 Mich

540, 547; 759 NW2d 850 (2008). Not every instance of juror misconduct warrants relief,

however; only those that “affect the impartiality of the jury or disqualify them from exercising

the powers of reason and judgment.” People v Nick, 360 Mich 219, 230; 103 NW2d 435 (1960)

(quotation marks and citation omitted). “Trivial acts of misconduct” do not warrant relief

because they do not cast doubt on whether the trial was fair and impartial, or whether the verdict

was legitimate. Additionally, a new trial is granted for juror misconduct only if it causes

substantial harm to the defendant. Id. See also People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 586; 831

NW2d 243 (2013).

“Prejudice must be shown, or facts clearly establishing the inference that it occurred from

what was said or done.” People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511, 545; 583 NW2d 199 (1998). In

other words, “[b]efore this Court will order a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct, some

showing must be made that the misconduct affirmatively prejudiced the defendant’s right to a

trial before an impartial and fair jury.” Id.

Defendant has failed to make any showing that the juror’s trivial act of misconduct

affirmatively prejudiced his right to an impartial and fair jury. There are no facts in the record

that even suggest that the jury was exposed to extraneous influences, nor is there anything

demonstrating that the juror’s improper act affected the legitimacy of the verdict.

Perhaps because he could not meet his burden, defendant argued instead that despite its

considerable discretion regarding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, the trial court had a

duty to investigate further. This is an erroneous statement of law, and the cases on which

defendant relied do not support his argument. A trial court’s decision not to question jurors will

not be held to be plain error when there are no facts or circumstances indicating that a juror or

jury has been exposed to improper extraneous influences, or that their ability to render a fair and

impartial verdict has been compromised. See People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583, 592-593;

808 NW2d 541 (2011). The trial court did not err in deciding not to question the jurors in this

case. The clerk, presumably a trusted member of the judge’s staff, informed the judge what had

happened. A comment was made by a juror, the clerk said she could not discuss the case, and

the matter ended there. There was nothing to suggest that the impartiality of any juror had been

compromised. See Id. at 593.

B. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

When a defendant fails to develop a record on his ineffective assistance of counsel

argument in the trial court, our review is limited to the record as it exists. People v Snider, 239

Mich App 393, 423; 608 NW2d 502 (2000). Ineffective assistance of counsel arguments present

mixed questions of law and fact. People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 566; 852 NW2d 587 (2014).

This Court reviews factual questions for clear error and questions of constitutional law de novo.

Id.

-6-

All those who have been accused of a crime also have a Sixth Amendment right to the

effective assistance of counsel in their defense. People v Anderson (After Remand), 446 Mich

392, 402; 521 NW2d 538 (1994). However, the burden is on the defendant to prove that he did

not receive effective assistance. People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 80; 829 NW2d 266 (2012).

Appellate courts afford defense attorneys wide discretion in trial strategy “because many

calculated risks may be necessary in order to win difficult cases.” People v Bass, 317 Mich App

241, 278; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), quoting People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 242; 749 NW2d

272 (2008) (quotation marks omitted). Therefore, a defendant must overcome a strong

presumption that his counsel’s actions and inactions were sound trial strategy. People v Horn,

279 Mich App 31, 40; 755 NW2d 212 (2008).

To prevail on an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, “a defendant must show that

his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel’s

representation prejudiced him so as to deprive him of a fair trial.” People v Garza, 246 Mich

App 251, 255; 631 NW2d 764 (2001). In other words, after demonstrating that counsel took, or

neglected to take, an action amounting to an unreasonable legal error, a defendant must show

that “but for the error, the result of the proceedings would have been different and that the

proceedings were fundamentally unfair or unreliable.” Id.

We decline to hold that defense counsel performed ineffectively here. As this Court has

previously explained, “[p]erhaps the most important criteria in selecting a jury include a potential

juror’s facial expressions, body language, and manner of answering questions.” Unger, 278

Mich App at 258. Defense counsel had the opportunity to observe the jurors at the time the trial

court addressed the incident at issue, including their facial expressions and body language. For

us to decide that his decision not to object was unreasonable error would be substituting our

judgment for that of trial counsel and utilizing the benefit of hindsight in assessing his

performance, which we will not do. Id.

Moreover, as provided above, defendant failed to make any showing that the juror’s

misconduct affirmatively prejudiced his right to an impartial and fair jury, and there are no facts

in the record to establish the jury was exposed to extraneous influences, or that these nonexistent

influences harmed defendant at all. Thus, he cannot establish that counsel provided ineffective

assistance, or that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had counsel

requested further inquiry into the situation. And because the trial court did not err by choosing

not to question the jurors about the incident, any objection would have been futile. “Failing to

advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance

of counsel.” People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201; 793 NW2d 120 (2010).

IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Next, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for

felony-firearm because he did not know where the gun was at the time it was discovered by the

police. In order to satisfy the requirements of due process, a conviction can be sustained only

when the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unger, 278 Mich App at 222.

Viewing the evidence “in a light most favorable to the prosecution,” we determine “whether a

rational trier of fact could have concluded that the elements of the offense were proven beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Id. In reviewing the evidence, we do not substitute our judgment for that of

-7-

the jury regarding witness credibility or the weight of the evidence. Id. Where the evidence

conflicts, we resolve the conflict in the prosecution’s favor. People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App

594, 619; 751 NW2d 57 (2008). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences that arise

from the evidence can sufficiently prove the elements of a crime. People v Jolly, 442 Mich 458,

466; 502 NW2d 177 (1993).

The felony-firearm statute applies to “[a] person who carries or has in his or her

possession a firearm when he or she commits or attempts to commit a felony[.]” MCL

750.227b(1). “The elements of felony-firearm are that the defendant possessed a firearm during

the commission of, or the attempt to commit, a felony.” People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499,

505; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). Possession may be actual or constructive. People v Minch, 493

Mich 87, 91; 825 NW2d 560 (2012). “ ‘[A] person has constructive possession if he knowingly

has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing,

either directly or through another person or persons[.]’ ” Id. at 92, quoting People v Flick, 487

Mich 1, 14; 790 NW2d 295 (2010). In the context of firearms, constructive possession has been

described as consisting of proximity and indicia of control. Flick, 487 Mich at 14, citing People

v Hill, 433 Mich 464, 470; 446 NW2d 140 (1989). See also People v Burgenmeyer, 461 Mich

431, 438-439; 606 NW2d 645 (2000) (holding that the proper focus is not on where the gun was

at the time of the police raid, but on where it was during the commission of the felony).

At trial, plaintiff established that the gun, which was registered to defendant, was found

under the only mattress in the house in which defendant lived and in which he was conducting

the ongoing felony of illegally growing marijuana. Thus, the evidence demonstrated defendant

had constructive possession. Although defendant cites a friend’s testimony that she had helped

defendant look for the gun a month or two before because he had misplaced it, the jury was free

to have disbelieved the friend’s testimony. See People v Davis, 241 Mich App 697, 700. Again,

in reviewing the evidence, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury regarding

witness credibility or the weight of the evidence. Unger, 278 Mich App at 222.

Defendant’s argument treats the statute “as though it prohibits possession of a firearm

when a person is arrested for a felony,” but this is not the proper inquiry. Instead, “[t]he proper

question . . . is whether the defendant possessed a firearm at the time he committed a felony.”

People v Burgenmeyer, 461 Mich 431, 438-439; 606 NW2d 645 (2000) (emphasis added).

Therefore, it is irrelevant whether defendant knew the gun was under the mattress at the time the

police searched the house. As discussed above, the jury could have inferred from the evidence

presented that defendant possessed the gun, actually or constructively, while growing illegal

marijuana.

V. SECTION 8 DEFENSE

Finally, defendant argues that he should have been entitled to present an affirmative

defense at trial under MCL 333.26428, Section 8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana4 Act,

We will use the more common spelling, “marijuana,” throughout this opinion, except when

quoting the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

-8-

MCL 333.26421 et seq. 5 Following a pretrial evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued an

opinion and order precluding defendant from presenting a § 8 defense at trial. Although

defendant concedes that he produced insufficient evidence at the hearing for a full dismissal of

his charges, he asserts that the trial court erred because “questions of fact existed which should

have allowed the defense to be submitted to the jury.”

“We review for an abuse of discretion a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, but

review de novo the circuit court’s rulings on underlying questions regarding the interpretation of

the MMMA[.]” People v Bylsma, 315 Mich App 363, 376; 889 NW2d 729 (2016) (quotation

marks and citation omitted). “ ‘A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside

the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.’ ” Id., quoting People v Duncan, 494 Mich

713, 722-723; 835 NW2d 399 (2013).

Section 8 of the MMMA provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary

caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense

to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid

where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion,

after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and

current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient

relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from

the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or

debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating

medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were

collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was

reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the

purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical

condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in

the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or

transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to

treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or

symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition. [MCL

333.26428 (citation omitted).]

The trial court’s opinion and order denying defendant the opportunity to present a § 8 defense

was not included in the record until after defendant filed his claim of appeal. Thus, this Court

granted defendant’s request to file a supplemental brief raising this argument.

-9-

Section 8 gives patients and primary caregivers the opportunity to assert an affirmative defense

to charges involving marijuana. People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192, 226; 870 NW2d 37 (2015).

“[I]f a defendant has not presented prima facie evidence of each element of § 8 by ‘present[ing]

evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant satisfied the elements

of the § 8 affirmative defense, . . . then the circuit court must deny the motion to dismiss the

charges,’ and ‘the defendant is not permitted to present the § 8 defense to the jury.’ ” Id. at 227,

quoting People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382, 416; 817 NW2d 528 (2012).

We agree with the trial court that defendant failed to present prima facie evidence of each

element of § 8 and, thus, was not entitled to present a § 8 defense at trial. Section 8(a)(1)

contains the following 3 sub-elements, each of which a primary caregiver must establish for

every “patient to whom the primary caregiver is alleged to have unlawfully provided marijuana”:

(1) The existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship,

(2) in which the physician completes a full assessment of the patient’s

medical history and current medical condition, and

(3) from which results the physician’s professional opinion that the patient

has a debilitating medical condition and will likely benefit from the medical use

of marijuana to treat the debilitating medical condition. [Hartwick, 498 Mich at

229-232.]

A valid registry identification card satisfies the second sub-element if issued after April 2013, as

well as the third, but “leaves unsatisfied the first element of § 8(a)(1) (the existence of a bona

fide physician-patient relationship).” Id. at 230-231.

At the evidentiary hearing, defendant claimed to be the primary caregiver under the

MMMA at the time of his arrest for five individuals—Michael Williams, Jeffery Andrew Rist,

Chantel Wright, Michael Maloney, and John Krautner—4 of whom testified, as well as a patient

himself. And he produced for the court a patient card for himself plus five caregiver cards for

each of the above individuals. However, assuming each patient, including defendant, had a valid

card at the time of the offenses issued after April 2013, thereby satisfying the second and third

sub-elements of § 8(a)(1), the trial court still correctly determined that defendant failed to present

prima facie evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the existence of a bona fide

physician-patient relationship for each of defendant’s patients.

In Kolanek, 491 Mich at 396 n 30, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that a “bona fide

physician-patient relationship” “envisions a pre-existing and ongoing relationship with the

patient as a treating physician.” Hartwick, 498 Mich at 231 (quotation marks omitted).6 “Thus,

to satisfy the first element—the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship—there

must be proof of an actual and ongoing physician-patient relationship at the time the written

certification was issued.” Id.