Pardon me, is that hemp you’re smoking?

In Iowa’s quest to cre­ate “traps for the unawary,” as Jus­tice Thomas calls them, con­sum­able hemp is the next fron­tier.  See Stand­ing Akim­bo v. Unit­ed States, 141 S.Ct. 2236, 594 U.S. ___, 210 L.Ed.2d 974 (2021) (State­ment of Jus­tice Thomas).  And see, Wel­come to Iowa, Land of Entrap­ment, Bleed­ing Heart­land, May 31, 2022.

He con­tends the evi­dence pre­sent­ed at tri­al was insuf­fi­cient to prove that the sub­stance at issue was mar­i­jua­na.  In par­tic­u­lar, he con­tends the State failed to prove the sub­stance was not hemp.

State v. Mey­ers, No. 24–1384, Court of Appeals of Iowa, Octo­ber 1, 2025.

In State v. Mum­ford, our supreme court reject­ed a sim­i­lar argu­ment. 14 N.W.3d 346, 356 (Iowa 2024).

She argues that there is insuf­fi­cient evi­dence to sup­port her con­vic­tion because the State failed to dis­prove the green, leafy sub­stance found in her purse was legal hemp.  We dis­agree.  Mum­ford at 355.

Id.  The instruc­tions giv­en to Mey­ers’ jury stat­ed:

Mar­i­jua­na, with the excep­tion of hemp and hemp prod­ucts, is a con­trolled sub­stance.

It is not nec­es­sary for the State to prove that the excep­tion for hemp and hemp prod­ucts does not apply, unless the defen­dant has first offered proof that the excep­tion does apply.

So, beware, you must prove your hemp has a THC con­tent of less than three tenths of one per­cent by dry weight or go to jail and do not pass go.