Summary of Decision June 24, 2011


[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Bruyette v. State

Citation: 2011 WY 99

Docket Number: S-10-0250

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=463433

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina Olson, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Katrina J. Brown, Student Intern.

Date of Decision: June 24, 2011

Facts: Appellant was charged with felony possession of marijuana. At trial, he sought to introduce evidence that he obtained the marijuana in California with a prescription for medical marijuana. The district court granted the State’s in limine motion to exclude evidence relating to a medical marijuana defense and instructed the jury that possession of medical marijuana was not a defense to the crime charged. The jury convicted Appellant of felony possession of marijuana. Appellant appeals, claiming the district court denied him his constitutional right to present his defense.

Issues: Whether Appellant was denied his right to present a defense to the jury guaranteed by Art. 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution and the United States Constitution.

Holdings: A criminal defendant has the right to present evidence in his own defense. That right, however, is not unlimited. The Wyoming Rules of Evidence provide that for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant. Relevant evidence is evidence having a “tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Even relevant evidence may be excluded, however, “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”

Here, the district court concluded a California physician’s recommendation to use marijuana for medical purposes (if such a recommendation existed) was not a valid prescription or medical practitioner’s order within the meaning of Wyo. Stat. 35-7-1031(c) and was not, therefore, a valid defense to a charge in Wyoming for possessing marijuana. A defendant charged with possession of marijuana under § 35-7-1031(c) is not exempt from criminal liability in Wyoming even if he legitimately obtained a medical marijuana prescription or physician’s order under another state’s law. The possession of marijuana, even for medical purposes, is illegal; therefore, it would be illegal under Wyoming law for a physician to prescribe or order, in any sense, the possession of marijuana. It is, likewise, illegal under Wyoming law for a patient, or anyone else, to possess marijuana even if he obtained it on the basis of a physician prescription or recommendation. The question of whether or not Appellant had a medical marijuana card from a California physician was irrelevant. Because it was irrelevant, the district court properly excluded it.

Affirmed.

C.J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 5

Summary of Decision January 19, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Burns v. State

Citation: 2011 WY 5

Docket Number: S-10-0053

URL: http://tinyurl.com/5s7a5av

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham M. Smith, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Delicath.

Date of Decision: January 19, 2011

Facts: Appellant entered a conditional plea of guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, namely marijuana. Appellant reserved the right to challenge the district court’s in limine ruling which prohibited him from presenting at trial any evidence and defense theories to the effect that he lawfully obtained the marijuana pursuant to a valid prescription of a practitioner in Colorado.

Issues: Whether the Appellant obtained a Schedule I controlled substance pursuant to a valid order of a practitioner in another state constitutes a defense under Wyo. Stat. 35-7-1031(c).

Holdings: The purpose of a motion in limine is to obtain the court’s pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence. As with other evidentiary decisions, the question of whether or not to grant a motion in limine is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Wyo. Stat. 35-7-1031(c), in pertinent part, makes it unlawful in Wyoming to possess marijuana “unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice.” The district court’s in limine ruling was based on its determination that Appellant’s Colorado medical registry card and the physician’s certification were not the equivalent of a “prescription or order” as intended under the statute.

The possession of marijuana, even for medical purposes, remains illegal in Wyoming pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-7-1013, 1014, 1031(c). Therefore, it would be illegal for a physician to prescribe or order, in any sense, the possession of marijuana. Indeed, the Colorado law simply allows for a physician to certify that a patient might benefit from the use of marijuana as a medical treatment. It is then left entirely up to the patient whether to apply for a medical marijuana registry card from the State of Colorado. It is the State of Colorado that makes the final determination whether the patient qualifies for the registry card, thereby exempting the patient from criminal liability for possessing amounts of marijuana necessary for medicinal purposes. Importantly, it is not the action of the physician that determines any potential possession of marijuana by the patient. Therefore, the physician is not prescribing or ordering the possession of marijuana as contemplated by the language of 35-7-1031(c). The exception found in 35-7-1031(c) simply does not apply in this case.

Section 35-7-1031(c) does not exempt a defendant from criminal liability even if the defendant obtained a legitimate medical marijuana exception under Colorado law. Colorado law does not allow a physician to prescribe or order, in any sense of the terms, marijuana possession. Thus, pursuant to §35-7-1031(c), a Colorado registry card is irrelevant to criminal proceedings in Wyoming. The district court’s decision on the motion in limine is affirmed.

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the court.