Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL TATE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1984-12-06
Citations: 198 N.J. Super. 285
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL TATE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 198
Pages: 285–289

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL TATE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued October 30, 1984—
Decided December 6, 1984.
Before Judges ANTELL, J.H. COLEMAN and SIMPSON.
James W. Kennedy, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant {John A. Kaye, Prosecutor of Monmouth County, attorney; Anthony Mellad, Jr., on the brief).
Robert I. Ansell argued the cause for respondent {Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell and Bonello, attorneys; Robert I. Ansell, of counsel and on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A Monmouth County Grand Jury indicted defendant for possession of more than 25 grams of marijuana in violation of N.J.S.A. 24:21-20a(4). Defendant served notice on the prosecutor that he would rely on the defense of medical necessity. See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3. Defendant, who is a quadriplegic, wants to present evidence in the trial to establish that he possessed the marijuana in question for his use to ease the pain caused by the disabling spasticity associated with being a quadriplegic.
The State's pre-trial motion to strike the medical necessity defense as a matter of law was denied. We denied the State's motion for leave to appeal. R. 2:5-6. The Supreme Court granted the State leave to appeal and "summarily remanded [the matter] to the Appellate Division to hear . the merits of the appeal." 97 N.J. 679.
We now affirm the order under review substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge McGann in his opinion dated April 6, 1984. 194 N.J.Super. 622. Compare State v. Stewart, 196 N.J.Super. 138 (App.Div.1984).
We add simply that should defendant be acquitted during the impending trial based on a medical necessity defense, his continued use of marijuana will be justifiable pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3 only until either the Controlled Dangerous Substance Therapeutic Research Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2L-1 et seq., makes marijuana available to defendant or until the Bureau of Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services makes tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) available to defendant, whichever first occurs. Our decision should not be interpreted as exempting from prosecution those who would aid defendant in obtaining or possessing marijuana. Finally, this decision is to be given only prospective application.