Michigan Medical Marijuana attorneys continue the battle to bring clarity to Michigan’s poorly thought out law. In the consolidated cases of People v. Johnson, et al., the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the reinstatement of criminal charges related to the operation of a marijuana dispensary. The cases originated in Oakland Circuit Court. The opinion was released for publication on September 11, 2013.
The seven defendants were charged with various offenses including conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver marijuana, conspiracy to deliver marijuana, delivery of marijuana and THC, and other drug related charges. However, the trial court granted the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss all charges under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq. The prosecution appealed as of right.
Ambiguity Grants Dismissal In Case
The nature and requirements of the MMMA can be reviewed in our articles Michigan v. McQueen or People v. Agro. The defendants in the trial court challenged the provisions of MCL 333.26524(b), (e) and (i) as ambiguous. In turn, the court ruled that ambiguities did exist in the provisions. In addition, after asserting that due process ramifications are present in criminal cases, it held that the rule of lenity should be applied—which states that courts should mitigate punishments when the punishment in the criminal statute is not clear. Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.
On appeal, the prosecution argued that the trial court erred when it dismissed all the charges without requiring the defendants to show they were entitled to protections under the MMMA. The Court noted that in the joint motion for dismissal, the defendants did not attempt to establish they had the legal right to seek protections under the MMMA. Furthermore, the defendants did not challenge as ambiguous any terms related to these protections. This was also neglected in the defendants’ brief on appeal. Since the court dismissed the charges without making any specific findings that the defendants were entitled to protections under the MMMA or to the statutory requirements, the Court of Appeals concluded that the lower court abused its discretion.
Regarding the rule of lenity, the Court stated that it only applies if the statute is ambiguous or lacks a clear indication of legislative intent. In addition, the Court stated that it also does not apply when interpreting the Public Health Code because the legislature mandated that the provisions be construed liberally for the health, welfare, and safety of the state citizens. Under the Code, it is illegal to create, possess, use, manufacture, or deliver marijuana. The defendants also argued that the rule should be applied also because they were denied due process and lacked fair warning. However, the Court noted that it appeared that the defendants were arguing they did not know the dispensaries were not legal under the MMMA. Yet, the Court asserted that the MMMA does not include any provisions stating that the dispensaries are legal business entities. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision to apply the rule of lenity.
The prosecution also argued that the trial court erred by failing to give retroactive effect to McQueen. The Court agreed that the lower court erred by not doing so. Furthermore, the Court stated that this is not a due process concern since this decision does not operate as an ex post facto law. At either level of review, McQueen did not criminalize previously lawful behavior. In other words, dispensaries were not authorized by statute and then made illegal by judicial interpretation. Moreover, retroactive application would not overrule uncontradicted, clear case law. Therefore, the Court determined it was entitled to retroactive application.
In conclusion, the Court reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the charges and for further proceedings.
If you are looking for skilled lawyers to handle your appellate MMMA case, please contact The Kronzek Firm PLC, today.