Background
Aaron Michael Painter and his fiancée, Ali Smith, were making marijuana concentrate inside their home using butane extraction. The process allegedly caused butane vapors to accumulate and ignite, producing an explosion and fire. Smith died, while Painter and their seven-year-old daughter suffered severe burns.
Prosecutors charged Painter with involuntary manslaughter, delivering or manufacturing marijuana, and third-degree child abuse. Painter moved to dismiss all three charges, arguing that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protected his conduct because he was processing marijuana for personal use inside his residence. The circuit court concluded 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 encompasses extracting or otherwise making marijuana concentrate. It also held that the statutory prohibition against butane extraction “within the curtilage” of a residential structure does not include the residence’s interior. On the limited record, nothing suggested that Painter exceeded the statutory quantity limit or lacked a personal-use purpose. The court therefore ruled that MRTMA immunity required dismissal of the marijuana charge, subject to any later-developed facts showing that the statutory conditions were not satisfied.
The court declined to dismiss the involuntary-manslaughter and third-degree child-abuse charges. Although the underlying marijuana processing was protected, the MRTMA does not immunize criminally negligent or reckless conduct that causes an explosion, death, or injury. Because the prosecution could pursue manslaughter based on negligent performance of a lawful act and child abuse based on conduct posing an unreasonable risk to a child, those charges could proceed. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Key Takeaways
- Butane extraction qualifies as marijuana “processing” under the MRTMA.
- The statutory reference to a residence’s “curtilage” means the adjoining land or yard, not the interior of the home.
- MRTMA immunity can bar a charge based solely on protected marijuana processing, but it does not shield criminally negligent or reckless conduct causing death or injury.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes immunity for lawful marijuana activity from liability for the manner in which that activity is performed. A person complying with the MRTMA may be protected from prosecution based solely on processing marijuana, including through butane extraction inside a residence, while still facing generally applicable criminal charges if the process is conducted negligently or recklessly and causes harm.