Opinion ID: 890157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the District Court erred in denying Johnson's motion to dismiss the charge of criminal possession of marijuana.

Text: ¶ 15 Johnson argues on appeal that she should not have been charged with criminal possession of marijuana because she holds a valid Montana Medical Marijuana Card. She maintains that under § 50-46-201, MCA, she cannot be arrested, prosecuted or penalized in any manner for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana regardless of where she obtained it. ¶ 16 The State argues that Johnson's interpretation of § 50-46-201, MCA, fails to take into consideration the MMA as a whole. The State maintains that when viewed in its entirety, the MMA requires cardholders to obtain marijuana from a single, approved caregiver, and that the purchase of marijuana from anyone other than the cardholder's approved caregiver is illegal. ¶ 17 Section 50-46-201(1), MCA, provided as follows: A person who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to 50-46-103 may not be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized in any manner or be denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a professional licensing board or the department of labor and industry, if: (a) the qualifying patient or caregiver acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, or transports marijuana not in excess of the amounts allowed in subsection (2); or (b) the qualifying patient uses marijuana for medical use. In addition, § 50-46-201(2), MCA, provided that [a] qualifying patient and that qualifying patient's caregiver may not possess more than six marijuana plants and 1 ounce of usable marijuana each. ¶ 18 Johnson contends that by convicting her of criminal possession of marijuana, the court effectively amended § 50-46-201, MCA, to insert the limitation that the ounce of marijuana a cardholder is allowed to possess may only be obtained from the cardholder's caregiver. ¶ 19 When interpreting statutes, this Court strives to implement the legislative objectives, and we are bound by a statute's plain language if we can glean the intent from the words used in the statute. State v. Merry, 2008 MT 288, ¶ 12, 345 Mont. 390, 191 P.3d 428 (citing Boettcher v. Montana Guar. Fund, 2007 MT 69, ¶ 19, 336 Mont. 393, 154 P.3d 629). Our task in interpreting statutes is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted. State v. Ashmore, 2008 MT 14, ¶ 12, 341 Mont. 131, 176 P.3d 1022 (citing § 1-2-101, MCA). ¶ 20 In addition, when interpreting statutes within a legislative act, `[i]t is our duty to interpret individual sections of an act in such a manner as to ensure coordination with the other sections of the act.' Zuazua v. Tibbles, 2006 MT 342, ¶ 25, 335 Mont. 181, 150 P.3d 361 (quoting Howell v. State, 263 Mont. 275, 286, 868 P.2d 568, 575 (1994)). This Court operates under the presumption that the Legislature does not pass meaningless legislation, and we will harmonize statutes relating to the same subject in order to give effect to each statute. State v. Brendal, 2009 MT 236, ¶ 18, 351 Mont. 395, 213 P.3d 448 (citing Oster v. Valley Co., 2006 MT 180, ¶ 17, 333 Mont. 76, 140 P.3d 1079). We will read and construe the statute as a whole to avoid an absurd result and to give effect to a statute's purpose. Brendal, ¶ 18 (citing In re Marriage of Shirilla, 2004 MT 28, ¶ 12, 319 Mont. 385, 89 P.3d 1). ¶ 21 The State maintains that Johnson's interpretation of § 50-46-201, MCA, is not persuasive because it is inconsistent with the other statutes within the MMA, which do not authorize patients to purchase marijuana from unauthorized drug dealers. Instead, a qualifying patient is required under the MMA to obtain marijuana from a single caregiver. Section 50-46-102(1)(a), MCA (A qualifying patient may have only one caregiver at any one time.). Similarly, § 50-46-103(4)(a)(i), MCA, provided that a caregiver could obtain a registry identification card if the caregiver was named in a qualifying patient's approved application and if the caregiver signed a statement agreeing to provide marijuana only to qualifying patients who have named the applicant as caregiver.... Contrary to Johnson's assertions, the MMA does not sanction cardholders obtaining marijuana from anyone other than their registered caregiver. ¶ 22 Johnson also contends that the statutory affirmative defenses then in existence belied any rational justification for limiting the scope of the MMA to cover marijuana obtained only from a cardholder's registered caregiver. She maintains that under § 50-46-206, MCA, the affirmative defense statute, even a non-cardholder is shielded from conviction. Section 50-46-206, MCA, provided in pertinent part: Affirmative defense. Except as provided in XX-XX-XXX, it is an affirmative defense to any criminal offense involving marijuana that the person charged with the offense: (1) (a) has a physician who states that or has medical records that indicate that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the person's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the potential benefits of medical marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the person.... ¶ 23 Contrary to Johnson's contentions, this statute does not support her argument. The existence of a statutory affirmative defense, by itself, cannot preclude a conviction. Rather, a defendant has the burden to raise and prove an affirmative defense. State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, ¶ 11, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648 (citing State v. Reynolds, 2004 MT 364, ¶ 9, 324 Mont. 495, 104 P.3d 1056). Here, although Johnson raised the affirmative defense in the court below, she did not prove it. ¶ 24 Under § 50-46-103(7), MCA, a qualifying patient faced significant consequences if the patient changed caregivers without notifying the Department of Public Health and Human Services. A person who has been issued a registry identification card shall notify the department of any change in the qualifying patient's ... caregiver ... within 10 days of the change. If a change occurs and is not reported to the department, the registry identification card is void. Section 50-46-103(7), MCA (emphasis added). ¶ 25 We agree with the State's position that it makes no sense that Johnson could buy marijuana from an unidentified drug dealer, rather than her caregiver, and somehow have more legal protections than a patient who changed caregivers without notice. Consequently, we reject Johnson's affirmative defense argument. ¶ 26 In its brief on appeal, the State resorts to the legislative history of the MMA, specifically the 2004 Voter Information Pamphlet, to support its argument that cardholders must obtain their marijuana from their registered caregivers. We adhere to the rule of statutory construction that there is no reason for us to engage in a discussion of the legislative history to construe [a] statute when we have determined that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face. State v. Goebel, 2001 MT 73, ¶ 21, 305 Mont. 53, 31 P.3d 335; accord Connecticut Natl. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) ([I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before all others. We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there. When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: `judicial inquiry is complete.' (internal citations omitted)). ¶ 27 We conclude in this case that the MMA is clear and unambiguous on its face, and that the District Court's interpretation harmonized the statutes within the MMA. ¶ 28 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err in denying Johnson's motion to dismiss the charge of criminal possession of marijuana.