Confusing Law Being Defined By Michigan Supreme Court
Since the moment Michigan voters passed the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act in 2008, it has been known as a confusing and unclear law. When a statute is not specific, judges must rely on their own wisdom and understanding. That is why some medical marijuana cases have been taken up to the Michigan Court of Appeals. That court made rulings in the cases of People v. King and People v. Kolanek which have been widely-criticized by medical marijuana advocates. However, those decisions were recently appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, and final rulings were made on the issues in the cases.
There are two defenses available to defendants under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. The first is what is called the Section 4 defense. Under this defense, if a patient obtains a written statement from a physician specifying his or her need for medicinal cannabis, the State of Michigan will provide a “registry identification card,” authorizing the person to use and possess a specific, limited amount of usable marijuana. The other defense is what is called the Section 8 affirmative defense. Under this defense, a defendant can essentially claim that if they had applied for a registry identification card, one would have been granted and therefore they should not be prosecuted.
Previously, the Michigan Court of Appeals had held that in order for defendants to claim the Section 8 affirmative defense, they must first meet all the requirements under Section 4. The Michigan Supreme Court overruled that idea, holding that they are two separate defenses. This is great news for criminal defense attorneys, because it leaves two defenses available for people who do meet all the requirements of Section 4 and one defense available for people who do not meet all the requirements of Section 4. This means that if a defendant can show he or she qualifies to be a medical marijuana patient, there may still be a defense under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act even if there was never an actual patient license issued by the state of Michigan.
One thing the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed in its decision is the fact that the physician’s statement regarding the patient’s medical use of marijuana must have been made after the enactment of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act in order for the defendant to claim a Section 8 affirmative defense. Thus, a doctor must make a statement about how a defendant would benefit from the medicinal use of cannabis after the law became effective, but before the activity for which the defendant is criminally charged occurred. The doctor’s statement must have been made in contemplation that the defendant would use marijuana in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.
If you or someone you know has been charged with any marijuana crime, now is the time to hire a good criminal defense lawyer.