Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Act 368 of 1978
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7531 (2026)

Burden of proof of exemption or exception; presumption as to license or order form; burden of rebutting presumption; liability not imposed for lawful performance of duties.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE


Act 368 of 1978


333.7531 Burden of proof of exemption or exception; presumption as to license or order form; burden of rebutting presumption; liability not imposed for lawful performance of duties.

Sec. 7531.

    (1)  It is not necessary for this state to negate any exemption or exception in this article in a complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in a trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this article. The burden of proof of an exemption or exception is upon the person claiming it.

    (2) In the absence of proof that a person is the authorized holder of an appropriate license or order form issued under this article, the person is presumed not to be the holder of the license or order form. The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption.

    (3) A liability is not imposed by this article or an authorized state, county, or local officer, engaged in the lawful performance of the officer's duties.

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978

PopularName Notes:

Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Jason Charles Robar, 910 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Jason Charles Robar, 910 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 23× “2d 785 (1979) (the defendant has the burden to prove the exemption now located in MCL 333.7531 [2] because the lack of authorization to deliver a controlled substance is not an element of a delivery charge); People v.”
People v. Perkins, 703 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 6× “7403 and MCL 333.7531. [19] Pegenau, supra at 282 , 523 N.”
People v. Pegenau, 523 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 14× “15(7403) and MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531), that define the offense of possession of a controlled substance and place the burden of proving a prescription on defendant, and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motions for a directed verdict and for a new…”
People of Michigan v. Richard Allen Baham, 909 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “While there are potential exceptions to this general prohibition, pursuant to MCL 333.7531(1) 5 provides that, when offering proof of the elements of the offense, the prosecution has no obligation to negate any exemption or exception in Article 7 of the Public Health Code, which…”
People v. Hartuniewicz, 816 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “See People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 513-516 ; 283 NW2d 785 (1979) (the defendant has the burden to prove the exemption now located in MCL 333.7531[2] because the lack of authorization to deliver a controlled substance is not an element of a delivery charge); People v Bailey, 85…”
People v. Hermiz, 551 N.W.2d 389 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 4× “§ 333.7531; M.S.A. § 14.15 (7531) provides: It is not necessary for this state to negate any exemption or exception in this article in a complaint, information, indictment, or other pleading or in a trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this article.”
People v. Konrad, 536 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “15(7403), and the burden of proving an exception falls on the person claiming it, see MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531). We have no common-law authority to redefine the body of this crime.”
People v. Nunez, 619 N.W.2d 550 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531). Finally, defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing on three grounds.”
People v. Meyer, 379 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 4× “[19] MCL 333.7531(3); MSA 14.15(7531)(3) provides: "(3) A liability is not imposed by this article or [ sic ] an authorized state, county, or local officer, engaged in the lawful performance of the officer's duties.”
People v. Crigler, 625 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Under the exemption provided by MCL 333.7531(3); MSA 14.15(7531) (3), police officers do not commit a crime when purchasing controlled substances provided that they are “engaged in the lawful performance of [their] duties.”
People v. Wooster, 372 N.W.2d 353 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “" MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531). Prior to the adoption of the Public Health Code in 1978, § 41(1) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1971 (MCL 335.”
People v. James Williams, 493 N.W.2d 507 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531) provides in pertinent part as follows: (3) A liability is not imposed by this article or (sic) an authorized state, county, or local officer, engaged in the lawful performance of the officer’s duties.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7531(1) — 8 cases
People of Michigan v. Richard Allen Baham, 909 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “While there are potential exceptions to this general prohibition, pursuant to MCL 333.7531(1) 5 provides that, when offering proof of the elements of the offense, the prosecution has no obligation to negate any exemption or exception in Article 7 of the Public Health Code, which…”
People of Michigan v. Jason Charles Robar, 910 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “2d 785 (1979) (the defendant has the burden to prove the exemption now located in MCL 333.7531 [2] because the lack of authorization to deliver a controlled substance is not an element of a delivery charge); People v.”
People v. Pegenau, 523 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. 1994). “15(7403) and MCL 333.7531; MSA 14.15(7531), that define the offense of possession of a controlled substance and place the burden of proving a prescription on defendant, and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motions for a directed verdict and for a new…”
People v. Hartuniewicz, 816 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “See People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 513-516 ; 283 NW2d 785 (1979) (the defendant has the burden to prove the exemption now located in MCL 333.7531[2] because the lack of authorization to deliver a controlled substance is not an element of a delivery charge); People v Bailey, 85…”
People of Michigan v. Richard Allen Baham (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7531(2) — 1 case
People v. Hartuniewicz, 816 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “See People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 513-516 ; 283 NW2d 785 (1979) (the defendant has the burden to prove the exemption now located in MCL 333.7531[2] because the lack of authorization to deliver a controlled substance is not an element of a delivery charge); People v Bailey, 85…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7531(3) — 2 cases
People v. Meyer, 379 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. 1985). “[19] MCL 333.7531(3); MSA 14.15(7531)(3) provides: "(3) A liability is not imposed by this article or [ sic ] an authorized state, county, or local officer, engaged in the lawful performance of the officer's duties.”
People v. Crigler, 625 N.W.2d 424 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Under the exemption provided by MCL 333.7531(3); MSA 14.15(7531) (3), police officers do not commit a crime when purchasing controlled substances provided that they are “engaged in the lawful performance of [their] duties.”
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.