Truth Seeker
New Member
When Ted Allen Anderson was arrested in June 2009 for growing material in his Kalamazoo home, his defense was Michigan's new medical marijuana law.
But confusion over the law's provisions has stalled the case for the past several years. This week, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the court proceedings should start from scratch, based on guidelines set in a recent Michigan Supreme Court case.
Anderson is facing a charge of manufacturing marijuana, a felony that carries up to a four-year sentence if he's convicted.
The medical marijuana law passed by voters in November 2008 "was not the clearest law in the world," said Carrie Klein, chief assistant prosecutor in the Kalamazoo County Prosecutor's Office.
"Now that we know what the guidelines look like and to be fair to both sides, the ruling is telling us that we should start back from the beginning," Klein said about Tuesday's unanimous ruling.
The facts are this: When Anderson was arrested, he told officials that his doctor suggested that marijuana would help relieve his back pain.
Anderson didn't have a medical-marijuana card, as set in Section 4 of the medical-marijuana law. However, Section 8 in the law still allows Michigan residents without a card to use medical reasons as a defense against criminal prosecution.
But Section 8 doesn't provide specific guidelines, and when Anderson's case came before Kalamazoo Circuit Judge J. Richardson Johnson, it was unclear what parameters Johnson should set.
A major question was whether Anderson should be held to the same standards listed in Section 4. For instance, medical marijuana card-holders are limited in the amount of marijuana they can grow and are required to keep the drug locked up.
Johnson ruled that the fact that Anderson had in excess of the amount allowed cardholders and the drug was not kept locked away could be considered in determining whether he was breaking the law.
That ruling was appealed by Anderson's attorney, and the case has been on hold since. Meanwhile, the appeals court put the case aside to awaiting a Michigan Supreme Court ruling on a similar case.
In that case, People vs. Kolanek, the Supreme Court said that "a defendant does not have to meet the requirements stated under Section 4 in order to assert a defense under Section 8."
In their ruling Tuesday, the appeals court judges said that while they were overturning Johnson, the real issue was the confusion in the law.
"We commend the trial court for its efforts on these difficult issues," the ruling said. "The record shows that the trial court took care to ensure that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their positions ... and thoughtfully examined and applied the provisions of the Medical Marihuana Act in reaching its decision."
Klein said that it's helpful to have more definite standards in prosecuting marijuana cases, but the general issue of confusion surrounding the medical marijuana law isn't going away.
"I think we're going to be litigating the medical-marijuana law for many years to come," she said.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: mlive.com
Author: Julie Mack
Contact: Contact Us - MLive.com
Website: 2009 medical marijuana case back in Kalamazoo Circuit Court after appeals court ruling | MLive.com
But confusion over the law's provisions has stalled the case for the past several years. This week, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the court proceedings should start from scratch, based on guidelines set in a recent Michigan Supreme Court case.
Anderson is facing a charge of manufacturing marijuana, a felony that carries up to a four-year sentence if he's convicted.
The medical marijuana law passed by voters in November 2008 "was not the clearest law in the world," said Carrie Klein, chief assistant prosecutor in the Kalamazoo County Prosecutor's Office.
"Now that we know what the guidelines look like and to be fair to both sides, the ruling is telling us that we should start back from the beginning," Klein said about Tuesday's unanimous ruling.
The facts are this: When Anderson was arrested, he told officials that his doctor suggested that marijuana would help relieve his back pain.
Anderson didn't have a medical-marijuana card, as set in Section 4 of the medical-marijuana law. However, Section 8 in the law still allows Michigan residents without a card to use medical reasons as a defense against criminal prosecution.
But Section 8 doesn't provide specific guidelines, and when Anderson's case came before Kalamazoo Circuit Judge J. Richardson Johnson, it was unclear what parameters Johnson should set.
A major question was whether Anderson should be held to the same standards listed in Section 4. For instance, medical marijuana card-holders are limited in the amount of marijuana they can grow and are required to keep the drug locked up.
Johnson ruled that the fact that Anderson had in excess of the amount allowed cardholders and the drug was not kept locked away could be considered in determining whether he was breaking the law.
That ruling was appealed by Anderson's attorney, and the case has been on hold since. Meanwhile, the appeals court put the case aside to awaiting a Michigan Supreme Court ruling on a similar case.
In that case, People vs. Kolanek, the Supreme Court said that "a defendant does not have to meet the requirements stated under Section 4 in order to assert a defense under Section 8."
In their ruling Tuesday, the appeals court judges said that while they were overturning Johnson, the real issue was the confusion in the law.
"We commend the trial court for its efforts on these difficult issues," the ruling said. "The record shows that the trial court took care to ensure that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their positions ... and thoughtfully examined and applied the provisions of the Medical Marihuana Act in reaching its decision."
Klein said that it's helpful to have more definite standards in prosecuting marijuana cases, but the general issue of confusion surrounding the medical marijuana law isn't going away.
"I think we're going to be litigating the medical-marijuana law for many years to come," she said.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: mlive.com
Author: Julie Mack
Contact: Contact Us - MLive.com
Website: 2009 medical marijuana case back in Kalamazoo Circuit Court after appeals court ruling | MLive.com
