Note
Medical marijuana; tenant use; eviction, see §521-39.
Law Journals and Reviews
Gonzales v. Raich: How the Medical Marijuana Debate Invoked Commerce Clause Confusion. 28 UH L. Rev. 261.
Case Notes
District court erred in re-determining the fact of medical use in contrast to the parties' stipulation that petitioner possessed and transported medical marijuana under a valid Medical Marijuana Registry Patient Identification Certificate, thus preempting consideration of petitioner's affirmative defense; given that the State presented no evidence showing that the marijuana was for any other use other than a medical use, petitioner proved that petitioner was authorized to possess marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to this part for purposes of an affirmative defense under §712-1240.1(2). 129 H. 397, 301 P.3d 607 (2013).
[§329-125] Protections afforded to a qualifying patient or primary caregiver. (a) A qualifying patient or the primary caregiver may assert the medical use of marijuana as an affirmative defense to any prosecution involving marijuana under this [part] or chapter 712; provided that the qualifying patient or the primary caregiver strictly complied with the requirements of this part.
(b) Any qualifying patient or primary caregiver not complying with the permitted scope of the medical use of marijuana shall not be afforded the protections against searches and seizures pertaining to the misapplication of the medical use of marijuana.
(c) No person shall be subject to arrest or prosecution for simply being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana as permitted under this part. [L 2000, c 228, pt of §2]
Case Notes
Rule of lenity required the construction, under the specific facts of the case, of §§329-121 and 329-122 and this section against the government, as there was an irreconcilable inconsistency between the authorized transportation of medical marijuana under §329-121, and the prohibition on transport of medical marijuana through "any ... place open to the public" under [§329-122(c)(2)(E)]; thus, under §701-115(2)(b), petitioner was entitled to an acquittal because petitioner's evidence, when considered in light of any contrary prosecution evidence proved by a preponderance of the evidence the specified fact or facts with negatived penal liability. 129 H. 397, 301 P.3d 607 (2013).
Section: Previous 329-102 329-103 329-104 329-121 329-122 329-123 329-124 329-125 329-125.5 329-125.6 329-126 329-127 329-128 329-129 329-130 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016