People of Michigan v. Aaron Michael Painter
Key claim: Making marijuana concentrate with butane at home counts as legal “processing” under Michigan’s marijuana law, so a manufacturing charge must be dropped, but that law does not block involuntary manslaughter or child-abuse charges when the process explodes and kills or injures someone.
Abstract
Michigan Court of Appeals opinion decided 2026-08-14. If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION August 14, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellee, 10:11 AM
v No. 374370 Gratiot Circuit Court AARON MICHAEL PAINTER, LC No. 24-008996-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GADOLA, C.J., and RIORDAN and SWARTZLE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this interlocutory appeal, defendant appeals as on leave granted1 the trial court’s order
denying his motion to dismiss the charges of involuntary manslaughter, MCL 750.321; delivering or manufacturing a controlled substance (marijuana), MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii); and third-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(5). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) ruling that his activity of butane extraction is not considered “processing” under the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., specifically MCL 333.27953(x); and (2) denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him under the immunity provision of the MRTMA, MCL 333.27955(1). We affirm the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter and child-abuse charges. However, we reverse the trial court’s ruling that butane extraction is not considered “processing” under MCL 333.27953(x) and its decision to sustain the marijuana charge, and remand to that court for further proceedings.
I. FACTS
Our recitation of the facts of this case is limited to those set forth in the parties’ preliminary
filings. According to defendant, on March 6, 2024, he and his fiancé, Ali Smith, were at their
1 We originally denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal. People v Painter, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 12, 2025 (Docket No. 374370). Our Supreme Court, however, remanded this matter to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. People v Painter, ___ Mich ___; 28 NW3d 338 (2025) (Docket No. 168734).
-1-
home with their seven-year-old daughter. Defendant and Smith woke up early to make marijuana concentrate, which is known as marijuana “dabs” or “wax.” The process that they used involved placing marijuana in a pressure vessel and filling the vessel with butane to remove the oil from the plant material. This results in a “mixture” that apparently is favorable for consumption once the butane is purged. After defendant began the process in the bathroom, there was an explosion and fire. Smith died, and defendant and their daughter were severely burned. Defendant claims that there was evidence that the butane vapors had filled an area of the home and were ignited in a flash fire.
Although the medical examiner determined that Smith’s death was accidental, the
prosecutor charged defendant with involuntary manslaughter, delivering or manufacturing a controlled substance (marijuana), and third-degree child abuse, arising from his conduct on the day at issue. The district court bound defendant over to the circuit court on those charges after he waived preliminary examination.
In the trial court, defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him on the basis that he
was immune from prosecution. Defendant argued that he was “processing” marijuana in his residence during the incident, which was expressly authorized under MCL 333.27955(1)(b) of the MRTMA. As a result, defendant reasoned, he was immune from prosecution under MCL 333.27954(5) of the MRTMA for any results caused by that processing.
In response, the prosecutor agreed that the MRTMA allows the storing and processing of
marijuana in a person’s residence for personal use under MCL 333.27955(1)(b). However, the prosecutor asserted, that provision appears to be in conflict with MCL 333.27954(1)(d), which provides that the MRTMA does not authorize the use of butane extraction “within the curtilage of any residential structure.” The prosecutor maintained that the more general provision of MCL 333.27955(1)(b) must give way to the more specific provision of MCL 333.27954(d), so butane extraction is not afforded immunity.
After considering the parties’ respective oral arguments, the trial court considered that the
parties stipulated that defendant was using the butane-extraction process and that he was doing so inside his home. Then, relying on People v Korkigian, 334 Mich App 481; 965 NW2d 222 (2020), the trial court ruled that the kind of “processing” for which there is immunity under the MRTMA does not include the complex manufacturing process that is butane extraction. Thus, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
The trial court then entered its written order a few months later memorializing its ruling
that butane extraction is not “processing” for the purposes of MRTMA immunity. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling regarding a motion to dismiss for an abuse of
discretion.” People v Jones, 252 Mich App 1, 4; 650 NW2d 717 (2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it selects an outcome that does not fall within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490, 496; 909 NW2d 458 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “We review de novo
-2-
issues of statutory interpretation.” People v Ambrose, 317 Mich App 556, 560; 895 NW2d 198 (2016).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that butane extraction is “processing” as defined by MCL 333.27953(x)
of the MRTMA and, because MCL 333.27955(1)(b) of the MRTMA provides that “processing” marijuana is immune from criminal prosecution, it follows that the three charges against him must be dismissed. We agree with defendant that butane extraction is “processing” and that the marijuana charge against him must be dismissed on this basis. However, we disagree that MRTMA immunity extends to the charges of involuntary manslaughter and third-degree child abuse.
“The MRTMA was enacted in late 2018, as the result of an initiative and referendum passed
by the voters of the state of Michigan.” People v Kejbou, 348 Mich App 467, 474; 19 NW3d 393 (2023). We interpret law passed by initiative by determining the intent of the electorate, rather than the intent of the Legislature. People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192, 210; 870 NW2d 37 (2015). “Our interpretation is ultimately drawn from the plain language of the statute, which provides the most reliable evidence of the electors’ intent.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The people enacted the MRTMA, in relevant part, to legalize marijuana and to “prevent
arrest and penalty for personal possession and cultivation” of marijuana. MCL 333.27952. To that end, “[a]ll other laws inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.” MCL 333.27954(5). Similarly, MCL 333.27955(1) the MRTMA expressly establishes immunity for certain conduct authorized by the act:
Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as
otherwise provided in [MCL 333.27954], the following acts by a person 21 years
of age or older are not unlawful, are not an offense, are not grounds for seizing or
Why this matters
Making marijuana concentrate with butane at home counts as legal “processing” under Michigan’s marijuana law, so a manufacturing charge must be dropped, but that law does not block involuntary manslaughter or child-abuse charges when the process explodes and kills or injures someone.