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. 

6th Circuit Court - Oakland County, Michigan - Josh Jones - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer

6^th Circuit Court – Oakland County, Michigan

The Circuit Court is a division of the state judiciary, and it serves as a trial court of general jurisdiction serving all the citizens of Oakland County and the townships, cities and villages located within. The court is located at 1200 N. Telegraph Rd., Pontiac, MI. The court currently has two satellite offices for Adult Probation and Juvenile Probation. The court oversees the counties felony criminal charges, convictions, sentencing and probation.

The court will also oversee or has the jurisdiction to preside over misdemeanor cases and charges. This will generally happen when the misdemeanor charge is also attached to a felony charge. If you were in need or are looking to file a Personal Protection Order (i.e. a PPO), the 6^th Circuit court would be the proper court for such an order. More information can be found here. The Law Office of Josh Jones also will or can assist in filing and properly preparing a PPO on your behalf.

There are fourteen (14) judges that oversee the court’s criminal docket. Charges any particular judge will see ranges from trespassing to murder. The court see the worst of the worst, but also the dumbest of the dumbest when it comes to criminal charges. A list of these judges, along with their bios, can be found here.

The large number of judges makes it difficult to know the expectations of any particular criminal charge; however, that difficult can be minimized by having the appropriate counsel by your side when walking into the 6^th Circuit Court. The Law Office of Josh Jones understands the stress, pain and worry that criminal charges bring. We focus on taking the stress out of any criminal mess.

If you need to check the status of your criminal case, which may still be pending at the 6^th Circuit Court, click here and enter the appropriate information. The court also posts its holiday schedule here, which indicates dates the court is closes. 

7th Circuit Court - Genesee County, Michigan - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones

7^th Circuit Court – Genesee County, Michigan

The Circuit Court is a division of the state judiciary, and it serves as a trial court of general jurisdiction serving all the citizens of Oakland County and the townships, cities and villages located within. It is comprised of nine (9) elected judges, and additionally, it has 80 individual making up its clerical, professional and administrative staff. The court is responsible for overseeing the Public Defender Program, Court Services Division, County Law Library, Financial Services Division, Felony and Misdemeanor Matters, Adult Probation, and Jury Commission. 

The court is located at 900 S. Saginaw, Flint, MI, and its doors open at approximately 8:00 A.M. Monday through Friday, except for Holidays when the court is closed. A list of holidays and days the court is closed can be found here. If you need to contact the court for any reason, a list of numbers and departments can be found here.

It is important to note and know that all persons will pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines in order to ensure that no weapons or illicit substances are brought into the courthouse, which includes cellphones with video capturing capabilities. The procedure for checking individuals when entering the courthouse will cause a short delay; however, be aware of this will cause the delay to be shortened dramatically.

The Circuit Court generally presides over felony criminal matters; however, it will also oversee or has the jurisdiction to preside over misdemeanor cases and charges. This will generally happen when the misdemeanor charge is also attached to a felony charge. The court see the worst of the worst, but also the dumbest of the dumbest when it comes to criminal charges.

The large number of judges makes it difficult to know the expectations of any particular criminal charge; however, that difficult can be minimized by having the appropriate counsel by your side when walking into the 7^th Circuit Court. The Law Office of Josh Jones understands the stress, pain and worry that criminal charges bring. We focus on taking the stress out of any criminal mess.

If you need to check the status of your criminal case, which may still be pending at the 7^th Circuit Court, click here and enter the appropriate information. 

Retroactivity - People v Carruthers - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - Josh Jones - Medical Marihuana Act

People v Carruthers - Part II - Retroactivity 

The Michigan Court of Appeals provided multiple insights into the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA) with its opinion in People v Carruthers. The biggest and boldest was how it defined “usable marihuana.” However, it also explained how the MMMA can be retroactive in his ability to apply its applicable defenses in certain cases or circumstances.

The court explained that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to allow the defendant to raise a Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) during an evidentiary hearing or during trial. The trial court held that the defendant did not meet the strict requirements of Section 4 (Immunity), and thus was precluded from asserting any defense under the MMMA. It must be noted, however, as the Court of Appeals did, that the opinion in People v Kolanek had not yet been penned, and thus was not controlling on the trial court in Carruthers.

Remember, pursuant to Kolanek, the Michigan Supreme Court explained that two identifiable defenses are found within the MMMA, Immunity and an Affirmative Defense. The defendant MUST NOW raise his or her affirmative defense in a pretrial motion in order to maintain his or her right to assert such a defense. Therefore, the trial court in Carruthers did not have the guidance of the Kolanek opinion. The most important part of the Carruthers opinion is that the defendant was able to have his case remanded back to the trial court and assert his affirmative defense, since he did not qualify for Immunity due to the resin based brownies being considered non-usable marihuana. 

When it comes to the MMMA it is essential to not only know the law, but to understand the law, especially when it is constantly in flux with itself. The MMMA protects certain individuals from criminal prosecution, and it provides a defense to others; however, it is imperative to obtain counsel when or if you are in trouble with the law while dealing with the MMMA. We have your back.

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.

People v Carruthers - Usable Marihuana Defined - July 12, 2013 - Michigan Marihuana Lawyer - MMMA - JOSH JONES

The Plain-Meaning Definition Of “Usable Marihuana

The Court of Appeal on July 11, 2011, provided an opinion that was high in parts, yet very low in other parts. See People v Carruthers. The court specially and repeatedly stated that resin (or THC extract) based brownies are not considered to be “usable marihuana” as explained in Section 4 (Immunity). However, the court also explained that because resin brownies are not considered to be “usable” an individual in possession of such brownies does not qualify for Section 4.

The court, in essence, found a loophole around qualifying an act, involving marihuana, as being covered by Section 4, similarly as the Michigan Supreme Court in People v McQueen found.

So…. Usable Marihuana is what?

Usable Marihuana is defined as:

“dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.” MCL § 333.2642(3)(k). 

Therefore, usable marihuana does not include all parts of the marihuana plant, meaning the resins, nor “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.” Marihuana on the other hand includes “all parts” of the cannabis plant, as well as “the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. See People v Carruthers.

The court dealt with the resin based product known as “Cannabutter,” which contained THC extract. The THC extract can be taken from any part of the plant, and it would still, under the Court of Appeals opinion, not be considered “usable marihuana” under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA).

So in the end, the Court of Appeals narrowed the definition of what constitutes “usable marihuana,” and explained that substance must contain plant material in order to be considered or attempting consider it “usable,” as required by Section 4. It also went on to explain that Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) does not maintain a narrow definition for marihuana used to treat or alleviate a medical condition. Therefore, it allows for Section 8 to be used when edibles are involved in the factual basis of the act at issue.

The court, however, did note that the potency of resin brownies, under a Section 8 defense, would come into play when determining whether the individual possessed an amount reasonably necessary to alleviate or treat the medical condition.  The court stated that “[g]iven the unmeasurable nature of the highly potent THC contained in such edibles, the health and welfare of Michigan citizens would be threatened, and prosecutions for possession and use of edibles containing higher-than-allowed quantities of THC would be systematically thwarted.” See People v Carruthers.

It is always necessary to know the law, know your rights, and maintain your ability to fight, especially when dealing with the MMMA. This opinion has made Section 4 narrower and more specific on what you can and cannot do in order to qualify for Immunity. So who has your back when you want to smoke or munch carefree?