Opinion ID: 2601655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in disallowing Fry's medical marijuana defense

Text: ¶ 23 Prior to trial, the State argued Fry was not a qualifying patient and could not, therefore, assert the compassionate use defense. The State also argued Fry could not claim the affirmative defense because the amount of marijuana in his possession exceeded a 60-day supply. The trial court concluded Fry was not a qualifying patient and declined to reach the State's other arguments. CP at 102-03. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's ruling. ¶ 24 Whether the trial court erred in disallowing Fry's compassionate use defense is a question of law we review de novo. See Tracy, 158 Wash.2d at 687, 147 P.3d 559. Fry bears the burden of offering sufficient evidence to support the affirmative defense of compassionate use. Id. at 689, 147 P.3d 559 (citing State v. Janes, 121 Wash.2d 220, 236-37, 850 P.2d 495 (1993)). Fry bore the burden of producing at least some evidence that he was a qualified patient who could assert the compassionate use defense. Id. (citing Janes, 121 Wash.2d at 237, 850 P.2d 495). ¶ 25 The intent of the medical marijuana statute was that [q]ualifying patients with terminal or debilitating illnesses who, in the judgment of their physicians, would benefit from the medical use of marijuana, shall not be found guilty of a crime under state law for their possession and limited use of marijuana. Former RCW 69.51A.005 (emphasis added). ¶ 26 A qualifying patient is a person who: (a) Is a patient of a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW; (b) Has been diagnosed by that physician as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition; (c) Is a resident of the state of Washington at the time of such diagnosis; (d) Has been advised by that physician about the risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana; and (e) Has been advised by that physician that they may benefit from the medical use of marijuana. Former RCW 69.51A.010(3) (1999). The State argues Fry is not a qualifying patient under the Act because Fry has not been diagnosed as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition under former RCW 69.51A.010(3)(b). Fry's doctor listed severe anxiety, rage, & depression related to childhood as the debilitating medical condition qualifying Fry to use medical marijuana. CP at 20-23. [5] These conditions did not qualify under I-692 as enacted. ¶ 27 In 2007, after the search and seizure in this case, the legislature revised the medical marijuana statute to include additional terminal or debilitating medical conditions that would qualify under the Act. RCW 69.51A.010(4). Fry's conditions of severe anxiety and rage are not included in the list of qualifying conditions, even as amended. In 2004, the State of Washington Department of Health Medical Quality Assurance Commission issued a final order denying a petition to include depression and severe anxiety in the list of terminal or debilitating medical conditions under RCW 69.51A.010(4). Final Order on Pet., In re Condrey, No. 04-08-A-2002MD (Wash. Med. Quality Assurance Comm'n Nov. 19, 2004). ¶ 28 Fry did not actually have a terminal or debilitating medical condition as provided in the Act. The stated intent of the statute was to allow a qualifying patient with a terminal or debilitating illness to be found not guilty of marijuana possession under certain circumstances. Former RCW 69.51A.005. (The people of Washington state find that. . . [q]ualifying patients with terminal or debilitating illnesses . . . shall not be found guilty. . . .). Conversely, the intent was not to excuse a marijuana user without a terminal or debilitating illness from criminal liability. Former RCW 69.51A.005. ¶ 29 In the only case we have decided under the Act, an otherwise qualifying patient received authorization to use medical marijuana from a doctor in California. Tracy, 158 Wash.2d at 686, 147 P.3d 559. This court interpreted the provision in the Act defining qualifying doctors as those licensed under Washington law to require a doctor formally licensed in Washington. Id. at 690, 147 P.3d 559. The majority opinion concluded that [s]ince Tracy was not a patient of a qualifying doctor, she is not entitled to assert the defense. Id. The court stated unequivocally that [o]nly qualifying patients are entitled to the defense under the act. Id. (citing former RCW 69.51A.005). ¶ 30 This court declined to extend the defense to Tracy, who was not in compliance with the statute because the doctor was not authorized to issue the medical marijuana authorization. Similarly, we will not extend the statute to permit an individual without a qualifying illness to claim its benefits. ¶ 31 In order to avail himself of the compassionate use defense, Fry must qualify under the Act. Fry does not have one of the listed debilitating conditions, and therefore does not qualify. We affirm the Court of Appeals decision to not permit Fry to claim the compassionate use defense.