People v King - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - MMMA - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

What Is A Patient Under The MMMA

The Michigan Supreme Court in People v King determined what an individual must do in order to be considered a “patient” within the language of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). See People v King. It explained that “patients” must obtain a doctor’s statement indicating a medical need for marijuana prior to the commission of any potential criminal act. A written statement or “prescription” may be more appropriate due to the required evidentiary hearing that is attached to criminal charges. It seem the outcome of the evidentiary hearing will be determined on the reasonableness of the activity compared to the requirements indicated in Section 8 of the MMMA. See MCLA § 333.16428.

Once the patient has obtained a statement or “prescription” from a doctor he or she may use a “reasonably necessary quantity of marijuana.” The Court did not elaborate on “reasonably necessary.” But in essence, a “patient” should be allowed to hold at least 2.5 ounces of marijuana (the amount indicated in Section 4). See MCLA § 333.26424.

It seems that the Court interpreted the Act clearly in a fashion that it was intended, which consisted of a variation in the term “patient.” You have those patients that will want to be somewhat immune from criminal exposure, if that person adheres to the strict requirements of Section 4 of the MMMA. See Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Section 4. You will also have those patients that do not want to register or become “qualified patients.” In the end the MMMA allows for multiple defenses involving a “patient’s” antibiotics.  See Mich. Supreme Court Expands Mich. Medical Marihuana Act.  

Consult your attorney to discuss the potential exposure to criminal prosecution and the stages of prosecution in order to make an informed decision about any and all questions regarding the MMMA. 

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Cooperative Growing - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - MMMA - People v Bylsma - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

Medical Marijuana and the Michigan Supreme Court –

Continuing On With Its Dance

Many people will make People v Bylsma out to be bigger than it is, meaning that this case has negatively impacted the medical marijuana community here in Michigan. However, the case was not without hope and should be read through its entirety prior to rendering judgment.

The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) analyzed the Bylsma case very narrowly, at least in regards to its application to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). Moreover, the Court only used this narrow analysis for part of its opinion. When the Court looked at Section 4 of the MMMA it determined that Bylsma did not hold immunity for his acts that brought him before the court. The Court held that Bylsma was not without recourse. That recourse is found in Section 8 of the MMMA.

So what was the issue? Bylsma was charged with manufacturing marijuana because he had maintained a warehouse that contained not only his medical marijuana plants (which he was legally allowed to grow), but it also contained plants from other patients—which he was not connected to through the State registry system. These patients were renting space inside the warehouse, and Bylsma was the owner and operator of the warehouse. The other plants, which were not technically owned by Bylsma, were still found to be in possession of Bylsma.

The Court was concerned, when looking at whether Bylsma possessed the over abundant amount of plants, whether there was a sufficient nexus between him and the contraband, which factors in whether he maintain dominion and control over the contraband. In the end, Bylsma did just this, and thus cannot be afforded immunity in the eyes of Section 4 of the MMMA. However, Bylsma had preserved the right to bring forth the Section 8 affirmative defense.

Because he had preserved this defense he is still allowed to raise it during or before trial, which has yet to occur with his case. The Court affirmed the fact that Bylsma does not have immunity, yet the Court also reversed in part and remanded the case back to the trial court. The trial court was told, by the MSC, that it should look to its opinion and analysis set forth in People v Kolanek, which outlines the analysis of a Section 8 affirmative defense.

At the end of the day, this was not a setback, but instead a clearing of mess that had been created and a reaffirmation of a cornerstone case—Kolanek. Some issues remain, but as time goes on those whom were weary of that fog will see that you still have rights, responsibilities, and avenues of recourse to puff away. It is time for you to be the one creating the fog, but instead of a mess you create tranquility.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.