State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones
246 Ariz. 452, 440 P.3d 1139 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act's (AMMA) definition of 'marijuana' as 'all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis' includes cannabis resin and its extracts, such as hashish, thereby immunizing registered qualifying patients from prosecution for possessing it within the statutory limits.
Facts:
- Rodney Christopher Jones was a registered qualifying patient under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).
- In March 2013, authorities found Jones in possession of a jar containing 1.43 grams of hashish.
- Hashish is a form of cannabis resin, which is extracted from the cannabis plant.
- Arizona's criminal code defines 'cannabis' (resin) as a narcotic drug, legally distinct from 'marijuana' (dried flowers from which resin has not been extracted).
Procedural Posture:
- Rodney Christopher Jones was charged in a state trial court with possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia.
- Jones filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing his possession was immunized by AMMA.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found Jones guilty and sentenced him to concurrent 2.5-year prison terms.
- Jones, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted Jones's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), which immunizes the medical use of 'marijuana,' also immunize the possession of cannabis resin, such as hashish, by a registered qualifying patient?
Opinions:
Majority - Vice Chief Justice Brutinel
Yes. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) immunizes a registered patient's possession of cannabis resin, such as hashish, because AMMA's broad definition of 'marijuana' controls over the criminal code's narrower definition. The court reasoned that AMMA specifically defines 'marijuana' as 'all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis,' which logically includes the resin extracted from it. The court emphasized that the word 'all' is comprehensive and that because AMMA contains its own definition, there is no need to look to the separate criminal code definitions. Furthermore, AMMA protects the 'manufacture' of marijuana, which includes extraction, and allows for non-smoked forms of consumption, indicating the voters' intent to permit processed products. The court distinguished the definition of 'marijuana' (the protected substance) from the definition of 'usable marijuana' (dried flowers), holding that the latter only serves to calculate the allowable quantity a patient may possess, not to restrict the protected form of the substance.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant conflict between the voter-enacted AMMA and Arizona's pre-existing criminal code, clarifying that medical marijuana protections extend beyond the raw plant material. It provides legal security for patients who use concentrates, edibles, and other non-flower cannabis products for medical purposes, which had previously been a legal gray area risking felony charges. The ruling sets a strong precedent for statutory interpretation of voter initiatives, prioritizing the plain language and purpose of the initiative itself over conflicting definitions in other parts of the state's legal code. This ensures that the intent of the electorate to create a comprehensive medical marijuana program is fully realized.
