By Nick Smith
Gongwer News Service
The Court of Appeals has refused to dismiss involuntary manslaughter and child abuse charges against a Gratiot County man.
The judges ruled that state immunity for marijuana processing does not cover conduct performed in a negligent manner.
The court reversed a lower court decision regarding a marijuana charge and remanded it for more proceedings.
A trial court was correct to refuse to dismiss involuntary manslaughter and child abuse charges against Aaron Painter following a home explosion while making a marijuana product in his home, the Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month.
In a published opinion by the Court of Appeals in State v. Painter (COA Docket No. 374370), the panel upheld the Gratiot Circuit Court’s ruling to refuse to dismiss involuntary manslaughter and third-degree child abuse charges against Aaron Painter.
The opinion, written by Judge Michael Gadola and joined by Judge Michael Riordan and Judge Brock Swartzle, reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain the marijuana charge and remanded that part of the case back for further proceedings.
Painter stems from the events of March 6, 2024, where he was at home with his fiance, Ali Smith, and their 7-year-old daughter.
The two woke up early that morning to begin making marijuana concentrate in the bathroom of their home.
Marijuana concentrate is made by putting marijuana in a pressure vessel and using butane to remove the oil from the plant, with the mixture being usable for consumption.
An explosion occurred during the process, causing a fire that killed Smith, severely injured Painter and badly burned their daughter. It was stated by Painter that the butane vapors filled part of their home and a flash fire occurred.
Despite Smith’s death being ruled accidental by the medical examiner, Painter was charged with involuntary manslaughter, delivering or manufacturing a controlled substance, and third-degree child abuse. The case was bound over from district court to circuit court after Painter waived a preliminary examination.
Painter sought dismissal of the charges, arguing he was immune from prosecution because he was possessing marijuana in the residence at the time of the explosion, which he said was authorized under a provision of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act.
Prosecutors agreed that the MRTMA allows for the storage and possession of marijuana in an individual’s residence while also arguing that it conflicted with another provision of the same law, stating that MRTMA does not authorize the use of butane extraction “within the curtilage of any residential structure.”
The trial court ruled the kind of “processing” for which there is immunity under the MRTMA does not include the process of butane extraction and denied the motion to dismiss the case, leading to the appeal.
Gadola in the opinion wrote the panel agreed with the defendant’s argument that butane extraction is “processing” and the marijuana charge should be dismissed.
“However, we disagree that MRTMA immunity extends to the charges of involuntary manslaughter and third-degree child abuse,” Gadola wrote.
Under MCL 333.27953(x), the definition of “processing” states: ”Process’ or ‘processing’ means to separate or otherwise prepare parts of a marihuana plant and to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare marihuana concentrate or marihuana-infused products.”
Gadola wrote that a relevant provision to the case is MCL 333.27954(1)(d), which states that MRTMA does not authorize “separation of plant resin by butane extraction or another method that utilizes a substance with a flashpoint below 100 degrees Fahrenheit in any public place, motor vehicle, or within the curtilage of any residential structure[.]”
Gadola wrote immunity does not apply to manslaughter or child abuse charges under MCL 333.27955(1).
While the statute broadly establishes immunity from arrest, prosecution or penalty with respect to processing, and processing includes butane extraction, “immunity under MCL 333.27955(1) is established ‘except as otherwise provided in [MCL 333.27954] of this act.’”
“In other words, MRTMA immunity under MCL 333.27955(1) is subject to, and limited by, MCL 333.27954,” Gadola wrote. “Further, MCL 333.27954(5) provides that’“[a]ll other laws consistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.’”
“We conclude that these laws are not ‘inconsistent with’ the MRTMA because it is possible to apply them to otherwise-immune conduct under the MRTMA that is performed negligently,” Gadola wrote. “That is, the MRTMA provide immunity for, among other activities, butane extraction, but it does not provide immunity when that butane extraction is performed in a criminally negligent manner.”
Gongwer News Service
The Court of Appeals has refused to dismiss involuntary manslaughter and child abuse charges against a Gratiot County man.
The judges ruled that state immunity for marijuana processing does not cover conduct performed in a negligent manner.
The court reversed a lower court decision regarding a marijuana charge and remanded it for more proceedings.
A trial court was correct to refuse to dismiss involuntary manslaughter and child abuse charges against Aaron Painter following a home explosion while making a marijuana product in his home, the Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month.
In a published opinion by the Court of Appeals in State v. Painter (COA Docket No. 374370), the panel upheld the Gratiot Circuit Court’s ruling to refuse to dismiss involuntary manslaughter and third-degree child abuse charges against Aaron Painter.
The opinion, written by Judge Michael Gadola and joined by Judge Michael Riordan and Judge Brock Swartzle, reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain the marijuana charge and remanded that part of the case back for further proceedings.
Painter stems from the events of March 6, 2024, where he was at home with his fiance, Ali Smith, and their 7-year-old daughter.
The two woke up early that morning to begin making marijuana concentrate in the bathroom of their home.
Marijuana concentrate is made by putting marijuana in a pressure vessel and using butane to remove the oil from the plant, with the mixture being usable for consumption.
An explosion occurred during the process, causing a fire that killed Smith, severely injured Painter and badly burned their daughter. It was stated by Painter that the butane vapors filled part of their home and a flash fire occurred.
Despite Smith’s death being ruled accidental by the medical examiner, Painter was charged with involuntary manslaughter, delivering or manufacturing a controlled substance, and third-degree child abuse. The case was bound over from district court to circuit court after Painter waived a preliminary examination.
Painter sought dismissal of the charges, arguing he was immune from prosecution because he was possessing marijuana in the residence at the time of the explosion, which he said was authorized under a provision of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act.
Prosecutors agreed that the MRTMA allows for the storage and possession of marijuana in an individual’s residence while also arguing that it conflicted with another provision of the same law, stating that MRTMA does not authorize the use of butane extraction “within the curtilage of any residential structure.”
The trial court ruled the kind of “processing” for which there is immunity under the MRTMA does not include the process of butane extraction and denied the motion to dismiss the case, leading to the appeal.
Gadola in the opinion wrote the panel agreed with the defendant’s argument that butane extraction is “processing” and the marijuana charge should be dismissed.
“However, we disagree that MRTMA immunity extends to the charges of involuntary manslaughter and third-degree child abuse,” Gadola wrote.
Under MCL 333.27953(x), the definition of “processing” states: ”Process’ or ‘processing’ means to separate or otherwise prepare parts of a marihuana plant and to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare marihuana concentrate or marihuana-infused products.”
Gadola wrote that a relevant provision to the case is MCL 333.27954(1)(d), which states that MRTMA does not authorize “separation of plant resin by butane extraction or another method that utilizes a substance with a flashpoint below 100 degrees Fahrenheit in any public place, motor vehicle, or within the curtilage of any residential structure[.]”
Gadola wrote immunity does not apply to manslaughter or child abuse charges under MCL 333.27955(1).
While the statute broadly establishes immunity from arrest, prosecution or penalty with respect to processing, and processing includes butane extraction, “immunity under MCL 333.27955(1) is established ‘except as otherwise provided in [MCL 333.27954] of this act.’”
“In other words, MRTMA immunity under MCL 333.27955(1) is subject to, and limited by, MCL 333.27954,” Gadola wrote. “Further, MCL 333.27954(5) provides that’“[a]ll other laws consistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.’”
“We conclude that these laws are not ‘inconsistent with’ the MRTMA because it is possible to apply them to otherwise-immune conduct under the MRTMA that is performed negligently,” Gadola wrote. “That is, the MRTMA provide immunity for, among other activities, butane extraction, but it does not provide immunity when that butane extraction is performed in a criminally negligent manner.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
