medical marijuana defense in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Frygreen wash · 2010 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2014 2 sentences 2014State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010); State v. Tracy, 158 Wn.2d 683, 687 , 147 P.3d 559 (2006). 2014Fry, 168 Wn.2d at 11 ; State v. Adams, 148 Wn.	1	3
State v. Butlergreen washctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005Compare Butler, 109 P.3d at 496-97 (defendant asserted common law "medical necessity" defense and offered no documentation under the Act). [8] As to the amount of marijuana Ginn possessed, the court concluded that Ginn presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the "not exceeding the amount necessary for a sixty day supply" element of the medical marijuana defense.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Tracy green wash · 2006 2 sentences 2014State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010); State v. Tracy, 158 Wn.2d 683, 687 , 147 P.3d 559 (2006). 2014State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010); State v. Tracy, 158 Wn.2d 683, 687 , 147 P.3d 559 (2006).	3	2012–2014
State v. Tracy green wash · 2006 2 sentences 2014State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010); State v. Tracy, 158 Wn.2d 683, 687 , 147 P.3d 559 (2006). 2014State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010); State v. Tracy, 158 Wn.2d 683, 687 , 147 P.3d 559 (2006).	3	2012–2014
State v. Fry green wash · 2010 2 sentences 2014State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010); State v. Tracy, 158 Wn.2d 683, 687 , 147 P.3d 559 (2006). 2014State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1, 10-11 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010); State v. Tracy, 158 Wn.2d 683, 687 , 147 P.3d 559 (2006).	2	2014–2014
State v. Adams neutral washctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2014Fry, 168 Wn.2d at 11 ; State v. Adams, 148 Wn. 2014Fry, 168 Wn.2d at 11 ; State v. Adams, 148 Wn.	2	2014–2014
State v. Shupe green washctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2018State v. Shupe, 172 Wn.	1	2018–2018
State v. Brown green washctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2014Rather, it merely states the statutory definition for "designated provider."15 According to the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 52.11, the medical marijuana defense instruction for "possession," "delivery," and "manufacture" of marijuana is the same.16 Thus, Washington's counsel proposed a jury instruction that would have allowed the jury to acquit Washington. 14 Appellant's Opening Brief at 22-23 (citing State v. Brown, 166 Wn. 2014App. 99, 102-03 , 269 P.3d 359 (2012)). 15 Brown, 166 Wn.	1	2014–2014
United States v. Jerad Kynaston neutral ca9 · 2013 1 sentence 2014Wash. May 31, 2012) (granting a suppression motion and concluding that under Washington law, an affidavit supporting a search warrant for evidence of a marijuana-based crime “must show probable cause that the criteria of the medical marijuana exception have not been met”), rev’d, 534 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2013) (unpublished).	1	2014–2014
State v. Jacobs green wash · 2005 1 sentence 2012State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 601 , 115 P.3d 281 (2005). ¶13 Brown had the duty to produce some evidence demonstrating that he was entitled to assert the medical marijuana defense; and, once he did, the trial court could not weigh conflicting issues of fact.	1	2012–2012
State v. Jacobs green wash · 2005 1 sentence 2012State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 601 , 115 P.3d 281 (2005). ¶13 Brown had the duty to produce some evidence demonstrating that he was entitled to assert the medical marijuana defense; and, once he did, the trial court could not weigh conflicting issues of fact.	1	2012–2012
State v. Tracy green washctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2006Id. at 392 , 115 P.3d 381 . 2006Id. at 392 , 115 P.3d 381 .	1	2006–2006
State v. Tracy green washctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2006Id. at 392 .	1	2006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.010 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.040 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.005 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.401 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 12 (2003–2021) WA 9 (2005–2018) MT 2 (2012–2024) AZ 2 (2015–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance