Georgia Supreme Court rejects constitutional challenge to marijuana statute
The Georgia Supreme Court recently rejected a defense lawyer's challenge to the state’s marijuana statute on constitutional due process grounds.
The case (In the Interest of D.H.) required the Court to decide whether Georgia’s possession of marijuana statute created a mandatory presumption of guilt in violation of constitutional due process guarantees. The Court held that the language of the statute does not violate the Constitution.
The ruling stems from the arrest of two juveniles for possessing marijuana. Police received a tip that two young men were involved in a drug deal at a gas station. Upon arriving, the police officers did not see anyone at the gas station; however, two teenagers matching the description were seen walking down a nearby road. The two officers stopped their vehicle and approached the two young men on foot. The suspects stated that they were coming from the gas station in question. The officers asked if they could search the two suspects and the suspects agreed. In the defendant’s pocket, an officer found rolling papers, and officers found marijuana on the other suspect. Both suspects admitted that they had just purchased the marijuana and were going to smoke it. The teenagers were issued citations for possession and were subsequently adjudicated as delinquent.
Their defense attorney appealed arguing that the text of the marijuana statute violates constitutional due process since it creates a mandatory presumption of guilt. The statute states that, “any person who is charged with possession of marijuana, which possession is of one ounce or less, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. . .”
The Court disagreed with this argument, and it determined that a literal reading of the statue would result in the absurd consequence of a defendant who is automatically found guilty the moment he or she is charged with the possession of marijuana. The Court explained that the literal meaning of a statute will prevail unless it leads to an absurd result which the legislature did not intend. In such cases, the Court will interpret the language in a reasonable manner in order to conform to the legislative intent and to ensure the statute is valid. According to the Court, the intent behind the statute was to show that possession of one ounce or less of marijuana was punishable only as a misdemeanor and not as a felony. The intent was not to create an automatic presumption of guilt. Thus, the Court interpreted the statute so as not to violate due process.
Attorney Page Pate of our firm was interviewed about the Court's decision on WABE FM 90.1, the Atlanta public radio station and NPR affiliate.
We did not represent the defendant in this case, but our criminal lawyers have helped people charged with Georgia drug crimes for 15 years. Although the constitutional argument was not effective in this case, challenges like this can (and should) be raised in drug cases involving marijuana prosecutions and illegal searches and seizures.
