Background
Aaron Michael Painter and his fiancée, Ali Smith, were making marijuana concentrate in their home using butane extraction while their seven-year-old daughter was present. Butane vapors allegedly accumulated and ignited, causing an explosion and fire. Smith died, and Painter and the child suffered severe burns.
Prosecutors charged Painter with involuntary manslaughter, manufacturing or delivering marijuana, and third-degree child abuse. Painter moved to dismiss all three charges, arguing that his conduct constituted protected “processing” under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act. The circuit court ruled that butane extraction was not protected processing and denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that butane extraction falls within the MRTMA’s definition of “processing,” which expressly includes extracting or otherwise making marijuana concentrate. It further concluded that the statutory prohibition on butane extraction “within the curtilage” of a residential structure does not cover the interior of the residence. Because the existing record indicated that Painter was processing marijuana at home for personal use and within the statutory quantity limit, the court held that MRTMA immunity required dismissal of the marijuana charge. It reversed that portion of the circuit court’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings.
The court nevertheless affirmed the refusal to dismiss the involuntary-manslaughter and third-degree child-abuse charges. MRTMA immunity protects lawful marijuana processing itself, but it does not shield a person from prosecution for criminally negligent or reckless conduct that causes death or injury. The prosecution therefore may attempt to prove that Painter performed the butane-extraction process in a criminally negligent manner that caused Smith’s death and exposed the child to an unreasonable risk of harm.
Key Takeaways
- Butane extraction is “processing” marijuana under the MRTMA’s broad statutory definition.
- The interior of a home is not part of the home’s “curtilage” for purposes of the MRTMA provision restricting butane extraction.
- MRTMA immunity bars a charge based solely on protected marijuana processing, but it does not bar manslaughter or child-abuse charges based on the allegedly negligent or reckless manner in which the processing was performed.
Why It Matters
The decision separates immunity for marijuana-related activity from liability for harm caused while engaging in that activity. Although compliant home processing cannot itself support a marijuana prosecution, the MRTMA does not excuse criminal negligence or recklessness that causes an explosion, death, or injury.