Dismissal despite indications of guilt doesn’t show a “bare antipathy” for the law, the justices wrote, saying while Wheeler has not disputed her technical violations, her lack of knowledge can be considered while weighing dismissal.
The justices also rejected the city’s argument that there was insufficient evidence of Wheeler’s lack of knowledge, saying the city did not point to any evidentiary concerns or offer contradictory facts, and at the hearing where the dismissal was granted, the city’s attorneys conceded that Wheeler was nothing more than the property owner and had nothing to do with the illegal business.
“Given the people’s ultimate willingness to concede, without reservation or qualification, Wheeler’s lack of any contact whatsoever with the dispensary, we see no prejudice in the trial court’s assumptions regarding her mental state,” the justices wrote.
Finally, the justices found that the record clearly shows that the trial court expressly denied Wheeler’s motion and twice stated it was acting on its own motion when dismissing the case, and reversed the appeals court’s finding that the trial court wrongly granted Wheeler’s motion.
