State v. Bachman, 595 P.2d 287 (Haw. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Bachman, 595 P.2d 287 (Haw. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“what we said in . . . baker and . . . renfro is still determinative. . . .”
56 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Romano (haw, 2007-03-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Romano (2×)
Haw. · 2007 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
what we said in . . . baker and . . . renfro is still determinative. . . .
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bonjour (4×)
Iowa · 2005 · confidence medium
In addition to AIDS, these have included complications of diabetes (People v. Mower, 28 Cal.4th 457 , 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002)); epilepsy (State v. Hanson, 468 N.W.2d 77, 77-78 (Minn.Ct.App.1991)); emotional anxiety caused by head injury (State v. Williams, 93 Wash.App. 340 , 968 P.2d 26, 28 (1998)); effects of chemotherapy (Seeley v. State, 132 Wash.2d 776 , 940 P.2d 604 , 606-07 (1997)); spasticity due to quadriplegia (Ta te, 505 A.2d at 942 ); glaucoma (State v. Bachman, 61 Haw. 71 , 595 P.2d 287, 288 (Haw.1979)); rheumatoid arthritis (State v. Hastings, 118 Idaho 854…
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Mallan (6×) also: Cited "see"
Haw. · 1998 · confidence medium
What we said in State v. Baker, 56 Haw. 271 , 535 P.2d 1394 (1975), and State v. Renfro, 56 Haw. 501 , 542 P.2d 366 (1975), is still determinative of this issue.” Id. at 72, 595 P.2d at 287-88 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Mohr v. Kelley
Colo. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See County Court v. Ruth, 194 Colo. 852 , 575 P.2d 1 (1977), appeal after remand, 198 Colo. 6 , 595 P.2d 287 (1979) (appellate jurisdiction limited to issues which had been before the district court in proper procedural posture).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Kealoha (2×)
Haw. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Bachman, 61 Haw. 71 , 595 P.2d 287 (1979); State v. Horn, 58 Haw. 252 , 566 P.2d 1378 (1977).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Tate (2×)
N.J. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Bachman, supra, 595 P. 2d at p. 288 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Bordowitz
N.Y. City Crim. Ct. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In reaching its decision, the court must balance the defendant’s interest in preserving his health against the state’s interest in regulating the drug involved.” (24 Wash App, supra, at 916, 604 P2d, supra, at 1317; see also, State v Bachman, 61 Haw 71, 595 P2d 287, 288 [1979]; cf., State v Tate, 102 NJ 64, 505 A2d 941 [1986]; United States v Richardson, 588 F2d 1235 [9th Cir 1978].) An important limitation to a claimed necessity defense is that a defendant may not rely upon it if the Legislature has acted on the very issue raised by the defense.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WALTER R. BACHMAN, Defendant-Appellant
NO. 6392.
Hawaii Supreme Court.
May 21, 1979.
595 P.2d 287
Walter R. Bachman, pro se and Christopher D. Ferrara, Deputy Public Defender for Defendant-Appellant., Lydia Garcia, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richardson, Ogata, Menor, Marumoto, Kato, Vacancies.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 89%
Citer courts: Hawaii Supreme Court (2)
[*72] Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of violating HRS § 712-1249, which provides:

“(1) A person commits the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree if he knowingly possesses any marijuana or any Schedule V substance in any amount.
“(2) Promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree is a petty misdemeanor.”

On appeal the defendant asserts the unconstitutionality of the statute. We find this contention to be without merit. What we said in State v. Baker, 56 Haw. 271, 535 P.2d 1394 (1975), and State v. Renfro, 56 Haw. 501, 542 P.2d 366 (1975), is still determinative of this issue. [1]

The defendant further argues, however, that medical necessity ought to be a defense to a marijuana possession charge. In United States v. Randall, 20 Cr.L. 2299 (decided Nov. 24, 1976), a superior court for the District of Columbia upheld the validity of such a claim. There the defendant was suffering from glaucoma, and medical testimony from a physician was to the effect that conventional medications for the disease were ineffective, and that surgery carried significant risks of immediate blindness. An experimental program conducted under the direction of the physician, to which the defendant subscribed, further indicated that marijuana smoking had a beneficial effect upon the defendant’s condition.

It is entirely possible that medical necessity could be asserted as a defense to a marijuana possession charge in a proper case. See HRS § 703-302. See also State v. Horn, 58[*73] Haw. 252, 566 P.2d 1378 (1977). This would require a showing, however, by competent medical testimony, of the beneficial effects upon the defendant’s condition of marijuana use, as well as the absence or ineffectiveness of conventional medical alternatives. United States v. Randall, supra. Relief from simple discomfort would not suffice. The harm to which the defendant is exposed must be serious and it must be imminent, HRS § 703-302; State v. Horn, supra, and medical testimony would be required to show compelling need for its use.

Walter R. Bachman, pro se and Christopher D. Ferrara, Deputy Public Defender for Defendant-Appellant. Lydia Garcia, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

The absence of such testimony in this case rendered ineffective the defendant’s asserted defense of medical necessity. Further, it would appear that under HRS § 328-16 a statutory vehicle presently exists by which marijuana may be prescribed for medicinal purposes by a practitioner licensed by law to administer the drug.

Affirmed.

1

We note that the legislature, in its 1979 session, has again rejected proposals to decriminalize possession of marijuana.