In People v Redden, Docket No. 295809, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed numerous questions regarding the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act's (MMMA) affirmative defense.

The MMMA became effective in December of 2008.  The named defendants obtained physician certifications for medical marihuana in March of 2009; however, the Department of Community Health did not begin issuing registry identification cards until April of 2009.  The prosecution contended that in order for defendants to invoke the MMMA's affirmative defense, they must possess the registry identification card mandated by Section 4 of the Act.

The Court of Appeals disagreed.  While "qualifying patients" are required to possess a registry identification card to receive the protections of Section 4, "patients" are entitled to assert the MMMA affirmative defense without possessing such identification.

A "patient" must satisfy three elements to be shielded from criminal prosecution under the MMMA's affirmative defense:

1. The patient must obtain a physician's statement acquired in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient is likely to receive benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof;
2. The patient must possess a quantity of marihuana not more than is 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 thereof, and;
3. The patient must be engaged in the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof.

The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in concluding that defendants established the three criteria required for the affirmative defense.

Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that defendants failed to establish a bona fide physician-patient relationship.  Noting that the certifying physician was employed for the sole purpose of writing medical marihuana recommendations, the court concluded that the facts at least raised an inference that the defendants saw the physician not for good-faith medical treatment, but rather, in order to obtain marihuana under false pretenses.

Next, the Court of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence presented for the district court to conclude that the defendants possessed an amount of marihuana "not more than reasonably necessary."  Defendants were found with 21 marihuana plants and approximately 1.5 ounces of marihuana.  The district court concluded that because this amount, when divided between two defendants, was less than the maximum permissible under Section 4, the amount possessed by defendants was consistent with the affirmative defense.

The appellate court found that the amount permitted under Section 4 is not equivalent to the "reasonably necessary" amount under Section 8.  And without any further evidence presented on this issue, the district court erred by concluding the affirmative defense was established as a matter of law.

Finally, the Court of Appeals found that the defendants failed to establish whether they had a serious or debilitating medical condition.  The certifying physician only stated defendants suffered from pain and nausea and never specifically identified an underlying condition.  The Court noted that "without knowing the nature of defendants' medical conditions, it is not possible to determine whether they are 'serious.'"

Judge O'Connell issued a concurring opinion that attempted to "cut through the haze surrounding the [MMMA]." This opinion largely included the interpretation of MMMA provisions outside the context of the specific facts before the court.