On April 1, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded the case to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. People v Hartwick, 493 Mich 950; 828 NW2d 48 (2013) (Hartwick I). On November 19, 2013, we affirmed the trial court's ruling in a published opinion, holding that defendant was precluded from asserting immunity from prosecution under § 4 because he "failed to introduce evidence of (1) some of his patients' medical conditions, (2) the amount of marijuana they reasonably required for treatment and how long the treatment should continue, and (3) the identity of their physicians."

Defendant then sought leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, entered an April 1, 2013, order remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.People v. Hartwick, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered October 11, 2012 (Docket No. 312308).People v. Hartwick, 493 Mich. 950, 828 N.W.2d 48 (2013). III.

Like a defendant who proves entrapment, a defendant is entitled to dismissal of any marijuana-related charges if he or she proves that he or she qualifies for § 4 immunity under the MMMA. See id.; People v. Tuttle, 493 Mich. 950, 828 N.W.2d 375 (2013); People v. Hartwick, 493 Mich. 950, 828 N.W.2d 48 (2013). Moreover, the reasoning behind entrapment principles is also applicable to § 4 immunity because a body of precedent to guide future police conduct is important to the application of § 4 immunity, which is meant to protect against arrest, as well as prosecution and penalty.