Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <em><a href="http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/14-15-Term-Opinions/149290-Opinion.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Mazur</a></em>, No. 149290, the Supreme Court held that a defendant solely in the presence or vicinity of medical marijuana that does not conform to the original Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26424 <em>et seq</em>, is not entitled to immunity under Section 4(i) of that act.  The court also held that the definition of paraphernalia in section 4(g) of the MMMA included items that were both specifically designed or actually employed for the medical use of marijuana.

contentpilot/introduction

Defendant Cynthia Mazur was charged with possession with intent to deliver less than 5 kilograms of marijuana and with manufacturing less than 5 kilograms of marijuana after police discovered the marijuana her husband—a registered medical marijuana patient and caregiver—was growing at their home.&nbsp; Police discovered notes Mrs. Mazur left her husband detailing the harvest dates for the marijuana plants, leading to charges against her as well. &nbsp;Because the conduct occurred before the passage of amendments to the MMMA that limited the circumstances under which a non-registered medical marijuana patient could claim immunity from prosecution for marijuana-related crimes, Mazur moved to dismiss the charges under sections 4(g) and 4(i) of the original MMMA. Under the original MMMA, section 4(i) prevents prosecution of persons who are either in the presence of medical marijuana in accordance with the act or who assist a qualified patient in using or administering marijuana.&nbsp; Another immunity provision, section 4(g), provides immunity for persons who provide a qualifying patient with marijuana paraphernalia for purposes of the patient’s medical use of marijuana.

core/paragraph

The court denied her motion, and Mazur sought leave to appeal.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals granted the application and affirmed the trial court’s decision. Section 4(i) did not apply here because the evidence at trial showed that the marijuana in this case was not grown in accordance with the MMMA, and that Mrs. Mazur assisted with the cultivation, not the administration of marijuana. &nbsp;However, the Court of Appeals erred by finding the definition of paraphernalia in section 4(g) did not include the notes Mrs. Mazur left her husband.&nbsp; Because the MMMA refers to paraphernalia for “medical use,” the court found the definition of paraphernalia to be broader than the definition used in the Public Health Code; paraphernalia for the purposes of section 4(g) is dependent on the item’s use.&nbsp; The harvest notes Mrs. Mazur provided her husband, then, were immune paraphernalia under section 4(g) because they were actively used in the cultivation of medical marijuana.&nbsp; The court held that if the notes were the only basis for the criminal charges, the charges must be dismissed, but if other evidence existed, the prosecution can proceed.

Justice Markman concurred in part and dissented in part.&nbsp; Justice Markman agreed with the majority that the defendant was not entitled to immunity under section 4(i), but would have found that the notes left by Mrs. Mazur were not paraphernalia under section 4(g), and that the defendant was not entitled to immunity under that section.

Justice Zahra and Chief Justice Young also concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the majority regarding immunity under section 4(i) and dissenting as to immunity under section 4(g).&nbsp; The pair found that marijuana paraphernalia under the MMMA must be used for the actual administration of medical marijuana, and that no immunity was warranted under section 4(g) in this case.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

MMMA revisited: MSC rules that whether drug “paraphernalia” meets the statutory definition depends on the item’s use

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

MMMA revisited: MSC rules that whether drug “paraphernalia” meets the statutory definition depends on the item’s use

professionals