Background
Aaron Michael Painter and his fiancée, Ali Smith, were making marijuana concentrate in their home using a process that placed marijuana and butane in a pressure vessel. According to Painter, butane vapors filled part of the home and ignited, causing 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 sought dismissal under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, arguing that he had been lawfully “processing” marijuana in his residence and therefore was immune from prosecution. The circuit court concluded that butane extraction was not protected processing and denied his motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that butane extraction qualifies as “processing” under the MRTMA because the statutory definition includes extracting or otherwise making or preparing marijuana concentrate. It also held that the statute’s prohibition on butane extraction “within the curtilage” of a residence does not encompass the residence’s interior. On the limited record, nothing indicated that Painter exceeded the statute’s quantity limit or was processing marijuana for anything other than personal use.
The court therefore reversed the refusal to dismiss the marijuana charge, which was premised on the protected processing itself. But it affirmed the refusal to dismiss the involuntary-manslaughter and third-degree child-abuse charges. The MRTMA does not immunize criminally negligent or reckless conduct merely because it occurs while processing marijuana, and the alleged use of butane in an inadequately ventilated bathroom could support those charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Butane extraction falls within the MRTMA’s statutory definition of marijuana “processing.”
- The MRTMA may bar a marijuana charge based solely on compliant, personal-use processing inside a residence.
- Marijuana-law immunity does not foreclose manslaughter or child-abuse charges based on criminally negligent or reckless performance of otherwise protected activity.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes immunity for marijuana activity itself from liability for the manner in which that activity is performed. Michigan defendants may invoke the MRTMA against charges premised solely on compliant residential processing, but the act does not shield them from generally applicable criminal laws when their methods allegedly cause death or injury through negligence or recklessness.