Richard Davis' "Constitutional Challenge," against the State of Arizona and the Federal Government for the Right to possess as property, plant, grow, harvest, sell and consume (as food, medicine, sacrament and recreationally), Cannabis Sativa and its seed and all Extracts thereof. 
Page 1 of 1

MARICOPA Deputy County Attorney David Flader's motion to suppress evidence in case NO. CR96-92561.
 

RICHARD M. ROMLEY
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

David Flader
Deputy County Attorney
Bar ID: 011853
Southeast Facility
222 E. Javelina Ave Ste 2400
Mesa, AZ 85210-6237
Telephone: 602 506-2888
Attorney for Plaintiff
 

                 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

                     IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
                                          _______________
 

STATE OF ARIZONA,
                                                             NO. CR96-92561
                                Plaintiff,
                                                   
STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE
                        v.s.
                                                    
(Assigned to the Honorable Brian Ishikawa, Div. P)

RICHARD MARVIN DAVIS,     
 
                                  Defendant.

____________________________
 

            Based on the Court's rulings in the instant case, the State moves this Court to preclude any physical evidence or testimony relating to the tax license/tax stamps or double jeopady.  The Court has granted the state's Motion to strike Defenses and Witnesses and denied the Defendant's Motions to Dismiss.  Therefore. The above evidence is not relevant.
             The State also moves this Court to  preclude any mention of Proposition 200, as discussed in the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, filed June 19, 1997.  Proposition 200 occurred after these offenses. This case does not involve the Defendant selling marijuana for medical use.  Additionally, Proposition 200 applies to "possession" or "use" cases.  Proposition 200 is not relevant to this case.

              Finally, The Defendant disclosed to the State on July 16,1997, a number of "educational" materials regarding the benefits of marijuana.  The Defendant also provided the State Cannabis Care-giver/Grower - Informed Patient Consent Form", along with prescriptions  for marijuana.  The Defendant's personal views on marijuana are not relevant to this case.  While the Defendant's views may be potentially relevant in a legislative hearing regarding marijuana laws, they are not relevant to this Judicial Court case.  The State moves this Court to preclude physical evidence and testimony regarding the alleged benefits or suggested legality of marijuana.
              These requests follow logically from the Court's previous rulings. The State asks this Court to grant this Motion, based on Arizona Rules of evidence 401 and 403.
 

               Submitted August  1   , 1997
 
                                                     RICHARD M. ROMLEY
                                                      MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
 

 
 
BY_________________________________
David Flader
Deputy County Attorney
 

 
Copy of the forgoing mailed/deliverd this 1 day of August, 1997,
to:
The Honorable Brian Ishikawa
Judge of the Superior Court

Mr. Richard Marvin Davis
Attorney Pro Per
 Los Angeles, California 90049

Mr. Michael Walz
Attorney at Law
45 West Jefferson
Suite 412
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

BY______________________
     David Flader
      Deputy County Attorney

Page 1 of 1
 
Technical Comments to the Webmaster [email protected]
Copyright 1997 Richard Davis All Rights Reserved