Washington v. Kurtz
Washington Supreme Court
309 P.3d 472, 178 Wash. 2d 266 (2013)
- Written by Patrick Speice, JD
Facts
William Kurtz (defendant) was charged with manufacture of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance after police found marijuana and marijuana plants in Kurtz’s home. The trial court ruled that the common-law medical-necessity defense was not available to Kurtz, and, as a result, the court did not allow Kurtz to present such a defense at trial without considering whether Kurtz could prove that the defense applies. Under the common-law medical-necessity defense, a defendant could not be convicted of a marijuana offense if the defendant’s use of marijuana was necessary to treat a medical condition, the benefits of such use outweighed the harms, and no other lawful alternatives were as effective at treating the defendant’s condition. Kurtz was convicted and appealed, arguing that Washington’s medical-marijuana law, which established an affirmative defense allowing medical-marijuana users to avoid conviction in certain circumstances and then legalized medical-marijuana use in certain instances, did not abrogate the common-law medical-necessity defense.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Madsen, C.J.)
Dissent (Owens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.