Coa Opinion: Assertion Of “Medical Marihuana” Defense Is Barred Because The Marijuana Was Not Kept In An Enclosed, Locked Facility.

[Morhawk]

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f0ef3ad2-ce9a-4a22-9f5b-cf85ea0ceb5b

 

Follow link for the full copy...

 

In People v. Danto, No. 302986 [consolidated with No. 303525, and People v. Nater, Nos. 302991 and 303064], the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s pretrial evidentiary ruling barring the admission of evidence of other acts committed by defendants, finding that the evidence of prior bad acts was introduced for a proper purpose under MRE 404(b), and did not unfairly prejudice the defendants. It also upheld the trial court’s order granting the prosecution’s motion to preclude assertion of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.23241 et seq. as an affirmative defense and to preclude reference to the MMMA at trial. Judge Elizabeth L. Gleicher filed a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority’s conclusion that the defense may not assert the MMMA affirmative defense and reference the MMMA at trial, where the prosecution may introduce evidence using the term medical marihuana.

 

In People v. Danto, the prosecution moved to admit evidence that on the same day that Danto and Nater’s residence was searched, police officers executed a search warrant at a café in which marijuana was sold and smoked. Danto was found at the café with marijuana packaged for sale, among other paraphernalia. The residential search turned up evidence of large amounts of marijuana in the living room. The Court of Appeals found that the proper purposes of the evidence under MRE 404(b) included establishing knowledge of and control over the marijuana found in his residence arising out of the constructive possession element of the possession with intent to distribute. The evidence found at the café would tend to make it more likely than not that Danto knew the substance in the living room was marijuana and that he controlled it. Further, the prosecution also identified the intent to distribute the marijuana by Danto’s packaging of the marijuana for sale and possession of other accoutrements of drug trafficking at the café, tending to increase the likelihood that he intended to distribute the marijuana found at his residence. The Court of Appeals found that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, reversing the trial court’s finding that the prejudicial effect substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence.

 

Please see full article below for more information.

[Ten4GoodBuddys]

Some days my reading comprehension is better than others.

 

What does this mean?

[pic book]

I am certain the COA did not intend to explictly convey that there is no such thing as medical marijuana; that had already been accomplished August 24 by 3 other members of the COA. But can u escape the conclusion the court has blotted out the 60+ percent of voter's wishes and sided with the feral Federal gov., that everything cannabis is black market and everything is illegal????????????????????

[bobandtorey]

Some days my reading comprehension is better than others.

 

What does this mean?

 

The Danto/Nater appeal revolves around whether defendants could mention the word "medical" during trial when it is alleged their marijuana growing operation was out of compliance with certain aspects of Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act. The defendants in this case claim fraudulent medical marijuana cards were used to entice them into selling marijuana to undercover police officers.<BR clear=all>

[The Digital Nomad]

To me, the court was pointing out that the way they found the large amount of marijuana in the living room, probably with similar packaging as Danto was caught with at the cafe. So, they inferred that he was intending to distribute the marijuana found in the home.

 

DN