Legal Topics

Criminal law — Possession of marijuana — Medical marijuana — Motion to dismiss based on exception to general prohibition on possession of marijuana for qualified patients who possess medical marijuana card is denied — Although defendant is qualified patient and purchased permitted amount of marijuana from treatment center pursuant to physician’s certification, defendant did not keep marijuana in its original packaging as is required by exception

Jan 06th, 2026 in by admin

Criminal law — Possession of marijuana — Medical marijuana — Motion to dismiss based on exception to general prohibition on possession of marijuana for qualified patients who possess medical marijuana card is denied — Although defendant is qualified patient and purchased permitted amount of marijuana from treatment center pursuant to physician’s certification, defendant did not keep marijuana in its original packaging as is required by exception

STATE OF FLORIDA, v. JAYDEN BARTLEY, Defendant. County Court, 2nd Judicial Circuit in and for Wakulla County. Case No. 24-MM-251. November 13, 2024. Brian D. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Harrison G. Broer, Assistant State Attorney, Second Judicial Circuit, Crawfordville, for State. Anabelle Dias, for Defendant.ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (hereafter “Motion”). After reviewing the Motion, the State’s demurrer, considering the argument of counsel for the State and the Defendant at a hearing held on November 12, 2024, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for the reasons stated below:Factual Background

1. The State and Defendant stipulated to the facts of this case, as well as the facts alleged in their respective Motion and demurrer. The Defendant is a qualifying patient for medicinal marijuana pursuant to Article X, § 29 of the Florida Constitution, and holds a valid medical marijuana card issued by the Florida Department of Health. On September 6, 2024, the Defendant purchased 28g of marijuana from a licensed medical marijuana treatment center. On September 10, 2024, law enforcement stopped a vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger. Trooper White, the law enforcement officer who initiated the stop, detected the odor of fresh and burnt cannabis emanating from the vehicle, and observed loose cannabis spread throughout the vehicle. Trooper White detained both the driver and the Defendant and determined that the Defendant possessed a valid medical marijuana card. Trooper White then conducted a search of the vehicle, which resulted in the discovery of 11g of cannabis in clear cellophane plastic wrap in the center console of the vehicle. Trooper White searched the Defendant and discovered approximately 2g of cannabis in clear cellophane plastic wrap in the Defendant’s back right pocket. The State admitted a photo of the 2g of cannabis on the Defendant’s person without objection at the hearing on the Motion as State’s Exhibit 1. The State and Defendant stipulated that the 2g of cannabis discovered in the Defendant’s back right pocket was not in the original packaging as purchased on September 6, 2024.

2. The issue for the Court to resolve is whether the State presented prima facie evidence in its demurrer and at the hearing on the Motion that a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b) occurred or if the Defendant met all the requirements for the exception provided for in Fla. Stat. § 381.986(14) in this case to survive a motion to dismiss.Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss

3. In response to a defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Fla. R. Crim. P., the State may file a traverse or demurrer in response. Rule 3.190(d), Fla. R. Crim. P. By filing a demurrer, the State admits the basic facts in a motion to dismiss, but despite such an admission, the trial court must still consider the facts alleged in the motion to determine whether the State has set forth a prima facie case. State v. Jaramillo, 951 So.2d 97 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D696a]. To establish a prima facie case necessary to survive a motion to dismiss, the State may rely on circumstantial evidence, and all inferences to be drawn therefrom are resolved in the light most favorable to the State. Id.Applicability of Fla. Stat.§§ 893.13(6)(b) and 381.986(14)(a)

4. Statutes which relate to the same or closely related subjects should be read in pari materia. State v. Fuchs, 769 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S680c]. Fla. Stat. §§ 893.13(6)(b) and 381.986(14)(a) relate to the unlawful and lawful possession, respectively, of the same substance, cannabis. Fla. Stat. § 893.02 defines “cannabis” as “all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis.” Fla. Stat. § 893.02(3). Fla. Stat. § 381.986 defines “marijuana” as “all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis.” Fla. Stat. § 381.986(1)(g). Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b) provides criminal sanctions for possession of less than 20g of cannabis, while Fla. Stat. § 381.986(14)(a) provides for an exception to such criminal sanctions for the same substance. Accordingly, the statutes are to be read in pari materia.

5. There is a general prohibition on the possession of less than 20g of cannabis by persons in Florida. Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b). Violation of this general prohibition is a first-degree misdemeanor. Id. The legislature created an exception to the general prohibition of possession of cannabis by enacting Fla. Stat. § 381.986(14), which states:

Notwithstanding § 893.13. . .or any other provision of law, but subject to the requirements of this section, a qualified patient and qualified patient’s caregiver may purchase from a medical marijuana treatment center for the patient’s medical use a marijuana delivery device and up to the amount of marijuana authorized in the physician certification, but may not possess more than a 70-day supply of marijuana, or the greater amount of 4 ounces of marijuana in a form for smoking or an amount of marijuana in a form for smoking approved by the department pursuant to paragraph (4)(f), at any given time and all marijuana purchased must remain in its original packaging.

Fla. Stat. § 381.986(14)(a) (emphasis added).

6. A plain reading of Fla. Stat. §§ 893.13(6)(b) and 381.986(14)(a) in pari materia indicates that unless a person complies with each element of the exception specified in Fla. Stat. § 381.986(14)(a), their possession on less than 20g of cannabis could result in criminal sanctions pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b).Conclusion

7. As applicable to this case, the Defendant is a qualified patient and purchased less than four (4) ounces or a 70-day supply of cannabis from a medical marijuana treatment center pursuant to his physician’s certification. However, the Defendant did not keep this cannabis in its original packaging. The Defendant had the cannabis in a plastic bag. Accordingly, the Defendant did not comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 381.986(14)(a) to meet the exception to the general prohibition on the possession of cannabis in Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b). Presumably, the legislature required all lawfully purchased cannabis to remain in its original packaging precisely to avoid this situation.

8. The Court finds that the Defendant failed to meet all the requirements of the exception to the general prohibition to the possession of cannabis, and, resolving all inferences in the light most favorable to the State, finds that the State has presented sufficient prima facie evidence that a violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(b) occurred to survive a motion to dismiss.

9. Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.