Judges & Medical Marihuana Immunity [People v Jones] - MMMA Case - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

Judges Deciding Immunity - People v Jones

On July 9, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals brought about further interpretation on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). More specifically, People v Jones explained that the decision of Section 4 Immunity is left up to the judge, but in what cases or circumstances?

Generally, an issue of fact (or a factual issue) is to be decided by a Jury (or the trier of fact), yet an issue of law (or a legal issue) is to be decided by the judge. This is long standing procedure. However, here in the State of Michigan and in certain situations and instances a judge still determines factual issues within a case. These situations include entrapment, voluntariness of statements, suppression of physical evidence, or consenting to search, to name a few.

The issues at hand in the Jones case dealt with whether or not the Defendant was a resident of the State at the time of her application and whether she was possessing marihuana for the medical use as a caregiver and patient.

The court paralleled Section 4 to the Entrapment Defense, and ultimately determined that Section 4 “fact-finding is a question for the trial court to decide. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision finding that [Section] 4 immunity fact-finding is a question for the jury is reversed.” Jones. 

Beek v Wyoming - Rights of Michigan Medical Marihuana Act [MMMA] - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a city could not completely ban the use and cultivation of Medical Marijuana. See Beek v City of Wyoming. The individual challenging a city ordinance argued that the ordinance was in conflict with State law, which makes the ordinance unconstitutional. The City, on the other hand, argued that it was following Federal law, or more precisely the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA), and thus the Federal law preempted State law, which would allow its ordinance to be enforceable.

The court had to determine this issue through statutory interpretation, which meant looking to the intent of the laws called into question, including the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), the City of Wyoming ordinance, and the CSA. The court explained that the ordinance provided for civil sanctions, yet the MMMA immunity forbids any penalty when acting within the scope and confines of the Act’s provisions.

Moreover, the federal law does not preempt (or overrule) the MMMA because States are allowed maintain specific police powers while the Federal Government enforces its own enactments. The Feds cannot require or mandate States to enforce federal statutes or enactments. Further, even though the Feds are allowed to pass laws criminalizing medical marihuana, it cannot require a State to do the same.

Therefore, the MMMA can be used by anyone within the state, in any county, so long as the individual qualifies for the act and follow it requirements. A city does not have the right to enforce an outright ban on Medical Marihuana.

PLEASE 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.

Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) Outlined [MMMA] - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

The Section 8 [Affirmative Defense] Briefly Outlined

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). It explained that “patients” must obtain a doctor’s statement indicating a medical need for marihuana prior to the commission of any potential criminal act. A written statement or “certification” may be more appropriate due to the required evidentiary hearing that is attached to criminal charges. It seems the outcome of the evidentiary hearing will be based upon the reasonableness of the activity and as compared to the other requirements indicated in Section 8 of the MMMA. See MCLA § 333.16428.

Once the patient has obtained a statement or “certification” from a doctor he or she may use a “reasonably necessary quantity of marihuana ” The Court did not elaborate on “reasonably necessary.” But in essence, a “patient” should be allowed to hold at least 2.5 ounces of marihuana (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. 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” marihuana and medical uses of such marihuana. 

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. 

People v King - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act - Patient Defenses - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer, Josh Jones

People v King - The Two Defenses For Patients

The Supreme Court in People v King provided a great deal of guidance when looking at the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), at least when it comes to those who possess and do not possess registry identification cards. In the end, the Court held that the MMMA has two classifications for marijuana “patients” in the State of Michigan.

The first rests within Section 4, which contains strict requirements and provides immunity against arrests, charges, and prosecution. The second rests within Section 8, which allows for registered and non-registered patients to qualify for an affirmative defense, but an evidentiary hearing will likely be held to determine if the individual has met the requirements set forth within the section. It should be noted that Section 8 indicates a presumption of compliance if the three “elements” are met. See MCLA § 333.26428. Therefore, Section 8 allows for a defense for those who do not satisfy Section 4 of the MMMA, yet subjects the individual to potential criminal prosecution and/or conviction.

Section 4 is differentiated from Section 8 because it refers to “qualifying patient” or “caregiver,” while Section 8 simply states “patient” or “patient’s caregiver.” Section 4 indicates qualifying patients and primary caregivers “who have been issued and possess a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner . . . for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act.” MCLA § 333.26424(a-b).

Further, the qualified patient and primary caregiver (if attempting to comply with Section 4) must not possess more than 2.5 ounces of “usable marihuana” nor have more than 12 marijuana plants kept in an “enclosed locked facility.” Remember, a qualified patient is allowed to possess 12 marihuana plants as an individual and a primary caregiver is allowed to possess 12 marihuana plants for each of the “qualifying patients to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process.” But remember, Section 7 also applies to Section 4, which limits activities involving medical marijuana in certain circumstances.

Therefore, registered patients and caregivers will not have to worry about prosecution if they follow the strict requirements set forth in Section 4, which includes those activities involving other registered and connected patients and caregivers. If the individual does not satisfy all the requirements within Section 4, he or she may qualify for a Section 8 defense. A Section 8 defense does not provide immunity from prosecution.

The Michigan Supreme Court has established two thresholds that police officers and prosecutors must overcome before prosecuting “patients” within the MMMA. Patients, registered and non-registered, now maintain two avenues of redress when facing alleged criminal prosecution within the State of Michigan.

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.