Case Title: DANIEL JOSEPH BURNS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0053

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-01-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
DANIEL JOSEPH BURNS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2011 WY 5Case Number: No. S-10-0053Decided: 01/19/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 

DANIEL 
JOSEPH BURNS,Appellant (Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee (Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Diane 
Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, 
Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program.  Argument by Mr. 
Alden.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David L. 
Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham M. Smith, Assistant Attorney 
General.  Argument by Mr. 
Delicath.

 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant Daniel 
Joseph Burns entered a conditional plea of guilty to felony possession of a 
controlled substance, namely marijuana.1  Burns reserved the right to challenge 
the district court's in limine ruling which prohibited him from presenting at 
trial any evidence and defense theories to the effect that he lawfully obtained 
the marijuana pursuant to a valid prescription of a practitioner in 
Colorado.  We will 
affirm.

 
 

ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Burns presents 
one issue for our review:2

 
 
Does 
the fact that a defendant obtained a Schedule I controlled substance pursuant to 
a valid order of a practitioner in another state constitute a defense under W.S. 
§ 35-7-1031(c)?

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      On March 12, 
2009, a trooper with the Wyoming Highway Patrol stopped Burns for speeding in 
Laramie County, Wyoming.  Upon 
approaching Burns' vehicle, the trooper detected a strong odor of marijuana 
emanating from inside the vehicle.  
Burns acknowledged the presence of marijuana in the vehicle and stated it 
was for "medical use."  A search of 
the vehicle revealed 666 grams, roughly one and one-half pounds, of 
marijuana.    Burns was 
arrested and later charged with felony possession of a Schedule I controlled 
substance under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(iii) (LexisNexis 2009).3  

[¶4]      As the case 
progressed to trial, Burns made known his intention to defend against the charge 
on the basis that he had legally obtained the marijuana pursuant to a valid 
prescription or order of a practitioner in Colorado under that state's medical 
marijuana laws.  He submitted a 
proposed jury instruction setting forth that theory of defense, and listed as 
exhibits in his pre-trial memorandum his Colorado medical marijuana registry 
card and associated physician certification.  The State responded by filing a motion 
in limine to exclude from trial

 
 
any 
evidence of, or defenses based upon, (1) the Defendant's admission to, or status 
on, the Medical Marijuana Registry maintained by the Colorado Department of 
Public Health and Environment; (2) the Defendant's "debilitating medical 
condition" as defined by or related to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry 
or the Defendant's alleged medical use of mari[j]uana; and (3) the medical 
efficacy of mari[j]uana.

 
 
In 
that motion, the State also sought to exclude Burns' proposed jury instruction 
to the effect that a valid prescription or order of a practitioner was a defense 
to the possession charge under Wyoming law.   

 
 
[¶5]      Not surprisingly, 
Burns resisted the State's motion.  
He maintained that the Colorado medical marijuana registry card and the 
physician's certification, pursuant to which he claimed to have acquired and 
possessed the marijuana, constituted a valid prescription or order of a 
practitioner as contemplated by § 35-7-1031(c) and, accordingly, provided him a 
statutorily recognized defense against the possession charge that he was 
entitled to present at trial.   
The district court disagreed and granted the State's motion in its 
entirety.     

 
 
[¶6]      Thereafter, and 
pursuant to a plea agreement, Burns entered a conditional guilty plea to the 
possession charge, reserving the right to challenge the district court's in 
limine ruling.  After receiving the 
State's assurance that it would not pursue prosecution of the possession charge 
in the event this Court reversed its ruling, the district court accepted Burns' 
conditional plea4 and sentenced him in accordance 
with the plea agreement to a suspended prison term of two to four years.  This appeal 
ensued.

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶7]      We must begin by 
noting that Burns' appellate brief fails to directly address or provide 
authority relevant to the issue presented.  
For instance, review would require this Court to analyze the meaning of § 
35-7-1031(c).  Burns provides no 
cogent argument or pertinent legal authority relating to this statute.  Generally, this Court would decline to 
do Burns' work for him and summarily affirm.  See generally, Neidlinger v. State, 2010 WY 54, ¶ 7, 230 P.3d 306, 308 (Wyo. 2010); Gabbert v. State, 2006 WY 108, ¶ 25, 141 P.3d 690, 698 (Wyo. 2006), abrograted on other grounds by Granzer v. 
State, 2008 WY 118, 193 P.3d 266 (Wyo. 2008).   However, despite Burns' extreme 
failure in appellate briefing, we will not invoke this extraordinary measure 
given the specific facts and circumstances of this case.

 
 
[¶8]      The issue 
preserved for our review concerns the propriety of the district court's in 
limine ruling.  "The purpose of a 
motion in limine is to obtain the court's pretrial ruling on the admissibility 
of evidence."  Reichert v. Phipps, 2004 WY 7, ¶ 4 n.1, 84 P.3d 353, 355 n.1 (Wyo. 
2004).  As with other evidentiary 
decisions, the question of whether or not to grant a motion in limine is left to 
the sound discretion of the trial court.  
Capshaw v. WERCS, 2001 WY 68, ¶ 5, 28 P.3d 855, 857 
(Wyo. 2001).  We afford considerable 
deference to a trial court's evidentiary ruling and will not reverse as long as 
a reasonable basis exists for that ruling.  
Armstrong v. Hrabal, 2004 WY 39, ¶ 10, 87 P.3d 1226, 1230 (Wyo. 
2004).  The burden is upon the 
person losing the motion to establish an abuse of discretion.  Brown v. State, 2005 WY 37, ¶ 12, 109 P.3d 52, 56 
(Wyo. 2005).

 
 
[¶9]      The district 
court ruled as a matter of law that the proffered evidence and defense theory 
were not relevant.  Our review of 
this issue requires an analysis of § 35-7-1031(c).  Since the issue in this case presents a 
question of law, our review is de novo.  
Dougherty v. State, 2010 WY 116, ¶ 4, 237 P.3d 403, 404 (Wyo. 2010); Crain v. State, 2009 WY 128, ¶ 8, 218 P.3d 934, 938 
(Wyo. 2009).

 
 
[¶10]   Section 35-7-1031(c), in pertinent 
part, makes it unlawful in Wyoming to possess marijuana "unless the substance 
was obtained directly from, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a 
practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice."  The district court's in limine ruling 
was based on its determination that Burns' Colorado medical registry card and 
the physician's certification were not the equivalent of a "prescription or 
order" as intended under the statute.  
Consequently, the district court concluded the exception did not apply to 
Burns' situation.  

 
 
[¶11]   Generally, our first step would be 
to analyze the definitions of "prescription" and "order" as used in the 
statute.  However, in this case 
there is no need to engage in that analysis.  The possession of marijuana, even for 
medical purposes, remains illegal.  
See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 
35-7-1013, 1014, 1031(c) (LexisNexis 2009); 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 844(a).  Therefore, it would be illegal for a 
physician to prescribe or order, in any sense, the possession of marijuana.  Indeed, the Colorado law simply allows 
for a physician to certify that a patient might benefit from the use of 
marijuana as a medical treatment.  
Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 14(c).  
It is then left entirely up to the patient whether to apply for a medical 
marijuana registry card from the State of Colorado.  It is the State of Colorado that makes 
the final determination whether the patient qualifies for the registry card, 
thereby exempting the patient from criminal liability for possessing amounts of 
marijuana necessary for medicinal purposes.  Id.  Importantly, it is not the action of the 
physician that determines any potential possession of marijuana by the 
patient.5  Clearly, therefore, the physician is not 
prescribing or ordering the possession of marijuana as contemplated by the 
language of § 35-7-1031(c).  The 
exception found in § 35-7-1031(c) simply does not apply in this 
case.

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶12]   Section 35-7-1031(c) does not 
exempt a defendant from criminal liability even if the defendant obtained a 
legitimate medical marijuana exception under Colorado law.  Colorado law does not allow a physician 
to prescribe or order, in any sense of the terms, marijuana possession.  Thus, pursuant to §35-7-1031(c), a 
Colorado registry card is irrelevant to criminal proceedings in Wyoming.  The district court's decision on the 
motion in limine is affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Although the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act uses the spelling 
"marihuana" we will use the more common spelling 
"marijuana."

 
 

2In his brief, Burns randomly throws in argument regarding Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 35-7-1024 (LexisNexis 2009).  In 
particular, he questions whether, as the ultimate user of the marijuana at 
issue, that provision insulates him from criminal liability.  This issue was not raised below and, 
consequently, it was waived by Burns' guilty plea.  Tucker v. State, 2009 WY 107, ¶¶ 30-31, 214 P.3d 236, 245-46 (Wyo. 2009); 
Kunselman v. State, 2008 WY 85, ¶¶ 11-12, 188 P.3d 567, 569-70 (Wyo. 2008); 
Morgan v. State, 2004 WY 95, ¶¶ 23-25, 95 P.3d 802, 808-09 (Wyo. 2004); Bailey v. State, 12 P.3d 173, 177-78 (Wyo. 
2000).   We therefore will not 
address the argument.

 
 

3That statute states in relevant part:

 
 
(c)  It is unlawful for any 
person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless the 
substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to a valid prescription or 
order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, 
or except as otherwise authorized by this Act.  Any person who violates this 
subsection:

(i)  And has in his 
possession a controlled substance in the amount set forth in this paragraph is 
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than twelve (12) 
months, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both. . . 
.  For purposes of this paragraph, 
the amounts of a controlled substance are as 
follows:

(A)  For a controlled 
substance in plant form, no more than three (3) 
ounces;

                                                
* * * *

(iii)  And has in his 
possession any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II or III in 
an amount greater than set forth in paragraph (c)(i) of this section, is guilty 
of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, a fine 
of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both[.] 

 
 

4The district court was concerned that the conditional plea would not be 
valid under Johnson v. City of 
Laramie, 2008 WY 73, ¶¶ 5,6, 
187 P.3d 355, 356-57 (Wyo. 
2008), because determination of the issue on appeal might not fully resolve the 
case.  

 
 

5The 
Physician's Certification clearly states that it is not a prescription for 
marijuana.