MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT
Initiated Law 1 of 2008
333.26428 Defenses.
|
8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
|
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:
(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;
(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and
(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.
(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).
(c) If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:
(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or
(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.
History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013
Compiler's Notes:
MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:
10. Severability.
Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.
For the transfer of powers and duties of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs, including its bureau of marijuana regulation, to the marijuana regulatory agency, and abolishment of the bureau of marijuana regulation, see E.R.O. No. 2019-2, compiled at MCL 333.27001.
For the renaming of the marijuana regulatory agency to the cannabis regulatory agency, see E.R.O. No. 2022-1, compiled at MCL 333.27002.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 13× “We granted leave in these cases to consider substantive and procedural aspects of the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8, MCL 333.26428, of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
· cites it 16× “Absent a situation triggering the affirmative defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “In the course of the preliminary examination, defendants asserted the affirmative defense contained in § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. 1 In support of the *70 defense, defendants presented testimony from Eric Eisenbud, M.”
People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt, 315 Mich. App. 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 11× “2 They have been consolidated on appeal because each case presents the same issue: whether a defendant who possessed, cultivated, manufactured, delivered, sold, or transferred marijuana to a patient or caregiver with whom the defendant was not connected through the registration…”
People v. Anderson, 809 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 26× “As we noted, defendant’s first argument is that the trial court erred in requiring him to produce expert testimony to establish his defense under MCL 333.26428. 1 This argument cannot be sustained, however, because the factual underpinning is incorrect.”
Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Comm'n, 838 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 11× “Section 8 of the act, MCL 333.26428, provides an affirmative defense to patients generally for “possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating…”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 4× “26424, or entitled to dismissal of the manufacturing charge under the affirmative defense in § 8 of the act, MCL 333.26428.[ 14 ] *26 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review for an abuse of discretion a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss 15 but review de novo the circuit…”
People v. Danto, 294 Mich. App. 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “303064 and 303525, defendants argue that the trial court erred by relying on People v King, 291 Mich App 503 ; 804 NW2d 911 (2011), lv gtd 489 Mich 957 (2011), to preclude defendants from raising a defense under § 8 of the MMA, MCL 333.26428, and from mentioning the medical use…”
People v. Johnson, 838 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 5× “The second protection afforded under the MMMA is set forth in MCL 333.26428, which as originally enacted provided, in relevant part: *459 (a) Except as provided in [MCL 333.”
People v. Campbell, 798 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “While defendant’s criminal charges were pending, the MMA was enacted and became effective on December 4, 2008.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(2) — 3 cases
Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Comm'n, 838 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“Section 8 of the act, MCL 333.26428, provides an affirmative defense to patients generally for “possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(3)(b) — 1 case
Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Comm'n, 838 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“Section 8 of the act, MCL 333.26428, provides an affirmative defense to patients generally for “possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(a) — 34 cases
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012).
“We granted leave in these cases to consider substantive and procedural aspects of the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8, MCL 333.26428, of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
“Absent a situation triggering the affirmative defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“In the course of the preliminary examination, defendants asserted the affirmative defense contained in § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. 1 In support of the *70 defense, defendants presented testimony from Eric Eisenbud, M.”
People v. Campbell, 798 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“While defendant’s criminal charges were pending, the MMA was enacted and became effective on December 4, 2008.”
People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt, 315 Mich. App. 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“2 They have been consolidated on appeal because each case presents the same issue: whether a defendant who possessed, cultivated, manufactured, delivered, sold, or transferred marijuana to a patient or caregiver with whom the defendant was not connected through the registration…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(a)(1) — 22 cases
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012).
“We granted leave in these cases to consider substantive and procedural aspects of the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8, MCL 333.26428, of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).”
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“In the course of the preliminary examination, defendants asserted the affirmative defense contained in § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. 1 In support of the *70 defense, defendants presented testimony from Eric Eisenbud, M.”
People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt, 315 Mich. App. 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“2 They have been consolidated on appeal because each case presents the same issue: whether a defendant who possessed, cultivated, manufactured, delivered, sold, or transferred marijuana to a patient or caregiver with whom the defendant was not connected through the registration…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(a)(2) — 20 cases
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“In the course of the preliminary examination, defendants asserted the affirmative defense contained in § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. 1 In support of the *70 defense, defendants presented testimony from Eric Eisenbud, M.”
Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Comm'n, 838 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“Section 8 of the act, MCL 333.26428, provides an affirmative defense to patients generally for “possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(a)(3) — 12 cases
People v. Redden, 290 Mich. App. 65 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“In the course of the preliminary examination, defendants asserted the affirmative defense contained in § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428. 1 In support of the *70 defense, defendants presented testimony from Eric Eisenbud, M.”
People v. Anderson, 809 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“As we noted, defendant’s first argument is that the trial court erred in requiring him to produce expert testimony to establish his defense under MCL 333.26428. 1 This argument cannot be sustained, however, because the factual underpinning is incorrect.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(b) — 28 cases
People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012).
“We granted leave in these cases to consider substantive and procedural aspects of the affirmative defense of medical use of marijuana under § 8, MCL 333.26428, of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).”
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
“Absent a situation triggering the affirmative defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
People v. Danto, 294 Mich. App. 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“303064 and 303525, defendants argue that the trial court erred by relying on People v King, 291 Mich App 503 ; 804 NW2d 911 (2011), lv gtd 489 Mich 957 (2011), to preclude defendants from raising a defense under § 8 of the MMA, MCL 333.26428, and from mentioning the medical use…”
People v. Bylsma, 825 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2012).
“26424, or entitled to dismissal of the manufacturing charge under the affirmative defense in § 8 of the act, MCL 333.26428.[ 14 ] *26 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review for an abuse of discretion a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss 15 but review de novo the circuit…”
People v. Anderson, 809 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“As we noted, defendant’s first argument is that the trial court erred in requiring him to produce expert testimony to establish his defense under MCL 333.26428. 1 This argument cannot be sustained, however, because the factual underpinning is incorrect.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(c) — 3 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
“Absent a situation triggering the affirmative defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(c)(1) — 3 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
“Absent a situation triggering the affirmative defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26428(c)(2) — 3 cases
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
“Absent a situation triggering the affirmative defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.26428), § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.