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 the combined cases of <em>People v. Hartwick</em>, No. 148444, and People v. Tuttle, No. 148971, the Michigan Supreme Court granted defendants’ leave to appeal and was once again called upon to interpret two important sections of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).&nbsp; The Court held that under Section 4, the availability of immunity is a question of law to be decided before trial, and a defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence his or her entitlement to immunity. Under Section 8, a caregiver must present prima facie evidence of each element of the defense for him- or herself and for each registered qualifying patient to which the caregiver is connected to raise an affirmative defense.

contentpilot/introduction

In Hartwick, the defendant, who was a primary caregiver for himself and five others, was charged with manufacturing marijuana and possessing it with the intent to deliver it. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges, claiming immunity under Section 4 and the affirmative defense under Section 8. The lower court denied the motions. The Court of Appeals denied defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The defendant sought leave to appeal.

core/paragraph

In Tuttle, the defendant, who was his own primary caregiver, was charged with, among other things, selling marijuana to an individual outside the protection of the MMMA. The defendant claimed immunity under Section 4 and the affirmative defense under Section 8. The trial court rejected both claims and denied defendant’s request to present Section 8 defense at trial, reasoning that (i) immunity was not appropriate because defendant’s illegal conduct negated defendant’s conduct with regard to the other charges; and (ii) the affirmative defense was not allowed because defendant failed to present prima facie evidence of each element of the defense. The Court of Appeals denied application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The defendant sought leave to appeal.

The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed Hartwick in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine Hartwick’s entitlement to Section 4 immunity. Notably, the Court held that the lower courts failed to make proper factual determinations as required by Section 4 and outlined the four elements the defendant must prove to establish immunity under Section 4. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed Tuttle in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine Tuttle’s entitlement to Section 4 immunity. Notably, the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to raise the affirmative defense under Section 8 and that there must be a nexus between the noncompliant and otherwise compliant conduct for the noncompliant conduct to negate the compliant conduct.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

MSC decides ninth MMMA case in just three years in latest attempt to clarify the law.

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. 

MSC decides ninth MMMA case in just three years in latest attempt to clarify the law.

professionals