Background
Aaron Michael Painter and his fiancée, Ali Smith, were making marijuana concentrate in their home through a process that used butane to extract oil from plant material. An explosion and fire occurred after butane vapors allegedly accumulated inside the home. 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 in-home processing of marijuana and immunized him from prosecution. 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 qualifies as “processing” under the MRTMA because the statutory definition expressly includes extracting and otherwise making or preparing marijuana concentrate. It also concluded that the statute’s prohibition on butane extraction within the “curtilage” of a residence did not include the residence’s interior. On the limited record, nothing indicated that Painter exceeded the statutory quantity limit or was processing marijuana for anything other than personal use. The court therefore reversed the refusal to dismiss the marijuana charge and remanded for further proceedings.
The court affirmed the refusal to dismiss the involuntary-manslaughter and third-degree child-abuse charges. Although the MRTMA protects compliant marijuana processing, it does not immunize a person from prosecution for criminally negligent or reckless conduct undertaken during that processing. The prosecution could therefore proceed on theories that Painter negligently caused Smith’s death and knowingly or intentionally created an unreasonable risk that physically harmed the child.
Key Takeaways
- Butane extraction performed inside a residence can constitute protected 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 does not bar manslaughter or child-abuse charges based on allegedly negligent or reckless performance of otherwise protected marijuana processing.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes immunity for the underlying marijuana activity from liability for the manner in which that activity is performed. A person complying with the MRTMA cannot be prosecuted merely for protected in-home processing, but legalization does not shield conduct that allegedly causes death or injury through criminal negligence or recklessness.
The ruling also clarifies that Michigan’s specific restriction on butane extraction in a residence’s curtilage does not itself prohibit extraction inside the residence, although the dangerous circumstances of a particular extraction may support other criminal charges.