04/30/2019
Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(1) (possession of marijuana, 1 ounce or less, 18 years or older). While a state trooper was conducting a traffic stop, Defendant admitted to possessing marijuana. At trial, Defendant attempted to introduce “the form that the doctor has to sign to give the okay for [a medical marijuana] card” (the form). Defendant intended to use the form to prove that he was a qualifying patient under § 21-28.6-8, an affirmative defense to the charged violation. But the trial magistrate believed that the form was hearsay, so the form was only admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of showing that Defendant had applied for a medical marijuana card. Although Defendant introduced evidence that he had obtained a valid medical marijuana card after the date of the stop, the trial magistrate concluded that Defendant was not a qualifying patient under the affirmative defense statute.
On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in concluding that Defendant was not a qualifying patient under § 21-28.6-8. Under the affirmative defense statute, “a qualifying patient may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.” A person asserting this defense must show that: (1) a physician completed a full assessment; (2) a bona fide practitioner-patient relationship existed; and (3) the practitioner determined that the benefits of the medical marijuana were likely to outweigh the risks. There is no requirement that the person prove that he or she had a valid medical marijuana card at the time of the incident.
Here, Defendant failed to meet the burden of showing the three elements of the affirmative defense statute. Although Defendant attempted to enter the form into evidence to show these three elements, the form was only admitted for a limited purpose, and, therefore, the form did not establish that Defendant was a qualifying patient under the statute. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous because Defendant failed to satisfy his burden under § 21-28.6-8 since the contents of the form were not admitted into evidence. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. J.C., No. T18-0008 (April 30, 2019).pdf