Court: Michigan Medical Pot Law Isn't Retroactive

[MI Compassion]

The Michigan appeals court says the state’s medical marijuana law can’t be used retroactively to save people from drug charges.

 

The court reversed a decision by a Tuscola County judge, who had dismissed charges against a man caught with nine plants and drug paraphernalia. Keith Campbell says he was using marijuana for medicinal purposes.

 

But the bust occurred in 2007, a year before the marijuana law took effect.

 

The appeals court said Wednesday there are defenses to possessing pot if the drug is used to ease illness. But the court notes there’s nothing in the law allowing it to be applied retroactively.

 

http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100714/NEWS05/100714009/1002/NEWS01/Court++Mich.+medical+pot+law+isn+t+retroactive

[urminutegot]

I would be a little bummed if I were sitting in jail on marijuana charges for the last 3 years and heard this

[bobandtorey]

CARO — A state Court of Appeals has published an earlier opinion reinstating charges against a Tuscola County man accused of manufacturing marijuana.

 

The published opinion now sets a precedent that is likely to affect cases involving the Medical Marijuana Act across the state.

 

97Share In July, the Appeals Court — comprised of Justices Peter D. O’Connell, Patrick M. Meter and Donald S. Owens, all of Lansing — reversed a Tuscola County judge’s ruling dismissing charges against Keith J. Campbell.

 

The Unionville man was charged in December 2007 with manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony and possession of marijuana.

 

In a motion to dismiss, Campbell’s attorney cited a 2006 California Supreme Court case that authorized retroactive application of medical marijuana laws.

 

Michigan voters approved the Medical Marijuana Act in December of 2008.

 

When the trial judge sided with Campbell, Prosecutor Mark E. Reene appealed to a higher authority.

 

Reene could not be reached for an update on Campbell’s case

 

 

[bobandtorey]

CARO — A state Court of Appeals has published an earlier opinion reinstating charges against a Tuscola County man accused of manufacturing marijuana.

 

The published opinion now sets a precedent that is likely to affect cases involving the Medical Marijuana Act across the state.

 

97Share In July, the Appeals Court — comprised of Justices Peter D. O’Connell, Patrick M. Meter and Donald S. Owens, all of Lansing — reversed a Tuscola County judge’s ruling dismissing charges against Keith J. Campbell.

 

The Unionville man was charged in December 2007 with manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony and possession of marijuana.

 

In a motion to dismiss, Campbell’s attorney cited a 2006 California Supreme Court case that authorized retroactive application of medical marijuana laws.

 

Michigan voters approved the Medical Marijuana Act in December of 2008.

 

When the trial judge sided with Campbell, Prosecutor Mark E. Reene appealed to a higher authority.

 

Reene could not be reached for an update on Campbell’s case

 

 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2010/08/appeals_court_decision_in_unio.html

[peanutbutter]

One important element was overlooked in this case.

 

That is the duty to perform placed on our legal system by section 8 of our law.

 

While the court noted the MMA provides new rights, they failed to look at this new duty.

 

This new duty to perform went into effect on 12/4/2008.

 

What duty?

 

"the case shall be dismissed."

 

One of our civil rights granted is the expected obedience of the judiciary to comply with their duty to perform.

 

12/4/2008 marked the date when this expected duty of judges went into effect.

[TajMahal]

Hope this duty does not go unnoticed by those involved.

 

 

 

One important element was overlooked in this case.

 

That is the duty to perform placed on our legal system by section 8 of our law.

 

While the court noted the MMA provides new rights, they failed to look at this new duty.

 

This new duty to perform went into effect on 12/4/2008.

 

What duty?

 

"the case shall be dismissed."

 

One of our civil rights granted is the expected obedience of the judiciary to comply with their duty to perform.

 

12/4/2008 marked the date when this expected duty of judges went into effect.