Judge Dismisses Felony Delivery Charges P2p Transfer Legal?

[JohnnyC]

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/2011/12/17/patient-to-patient-transfers-legal/

 

Barry County Circuit Judge Amy McDowell dismissed felony delivery of marihuana charges after finding that a transfer of less than 2.5 ounces of marihuana between Qualifying Patients is protected by Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act.The Judge based her decision on the clear language of the Act. Specifically, she noted that a Qualifying Patient engaged in the “medical use” of marihuana is protected from prosecution or penalty. And because “medical use” is statutorily defined to include the “transfer” and “delivery” of marihuana, the felony charge for delivering marihuana could not stand.

 

Matt Newburg of Newburg Law, PLLC represented the Defendant and said “it is refreshing to see the facts applied to the law. We felt confident about our case and knew it would come down to the clear language in the statute. We have always believed patient-to-patient transfers were not only protected but authorized by the Medical Marihuana Act.”

 

It is not clear whether the Barry County Prosecuting Attorney will appeal the Judge’s decision.

 

Click here to read Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, here to read the prosecuting attorney’s brief and here to read Defendant’s response to the Prosecuting Attorney brief.

 

Tagged with: attorney • barry county • brief • criminal defense • drug • drug crimes • drugs • felony • lawyer • marihuana • marijuana • medical marihuana • medical marijuana • medical use • medical use of marihuana • michigan • transfer medical use of marijuana

[Nemosity]

[Petyr]

It didn't make them legal when this happened last December, nor does it make them legal now. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think one judges decision on one case amounts to much of anything; other than a good day for the guy who was in court.

[SFC]

Awesome ruling! It may not have won the war but every battle we win in court is one more step closer to victory.

[Hayduke]

Of course the next question is: will this be appealed? Because the COA has not been kind.

 

But one more good decision, and lots of credit goes to Matt Newburg.

[mibrains]

[Celliach]

WooHoo!

[cristinew]

this was without cash?

[GanjaWarrior]

this was without cash?

 

assumption? no i dont believe it was....its pretty plain if you read the law....i also try to consider the intent of the voter...some try to throw that out the window....but i voted for it...i know what i intended lol

Edited July 7, 2012 by GanjaWarrior

[GanjaWarrior]

assumption? no i dont believe it was....its pretty plain if you read the law....i also try to consider the intent of the voter...some try to throw that out the window....but i voted for it...i know what it says

 

 

also interesting to note the prosecutor brought up mcqween vrs state....still thrown out

[shishka]

According to the motion to dismiss, This was without cash exchanging hands.

[GanjaWarrior]

According to the motion to dismiss, This was without cash exchanging hands.

 

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Motion-Brief-NOH-POS-to-Dismiss.pdf

 

could you highlight it? i cant find my glasses i cant see it...not doubting you i really cant find it?

[shishka]

http://www.onmedical...-to-Dismiss.pdf

 

could you highlight it? i cant find my glasses i cant see it...not doubting you i really cant find it?

 

Page 4, second sentence. "No money was exchanged as a result of this transaction".

[SFC]

Hmm, still a victory regardless if it was for cash or not. I'll take it.

[GanjaWarrior]

Page 4, second sentence. "No money was exchanged as a result of this transaction".

 

thanks...not sure if its my com...i have a hell of a time not skipping pages

[GanjaWarrior]

Hmm, still a victory regardless if it was for cash or not. I'll take it.

 

amen....this is beyond super great....not only does it show transfers are acceptable.....it also shows that there is a connection between between us....even if im not your cg....i know this is one judge and all but i hope it allows some people to help others with less fear

[medical_seeds]

Good news

[CaveatLector]

This is old news. We've heard about this case months ago.

[shishka]

Absolutely! Unless one of the two parties involved is LEO and can prove it, money is never exchanged.

[GanjaWarrior]

This is old news. We've heard about this case months ago.

 

yes we did, and its still great news...i personally liked seeing it brought up again... this case shows an obvious connection between people in the program...but not in a cg pt relationship....its makes it obvious p2p is legal....and there's a reason they use dif words like "a" and "the".... read the plain language of the law the way its written....

[CaveatLector]

This is a circuit court case. It doesn't make it "obvious" that it's legal.

[shishka]

Well if the prosecutor decides to appeal, yeah, he's fugded by the COA.

But, if enough judges were to rule this way, prosecutors may just give up.

Appeals are expensive, not just for the defendant.

[purple pimpernel]

it's interesting that this judge said medical use was 'statutorily' defined to include delivery and transfer....

 

as indicated in..." the clear language of the law"

 

kinda seems like the SC was on spot when they said their goal was to.." ascertain and give effect to the intent of the electorate" ....and give words of the MMMA ..." their ordinary and plain meaning as would be understood by the electorate"...(us)

 

and I applaud mr Newburgh for believing.." p-to-p transfers we're not only protected but authorized" by the MMMA

 

as a lot of us believe---

 

let's just be glad mr Newburgh " litigated" this case instead of mr knowlton----

Edited July 8, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[CaveatLector]

Well if the prosecutor decides to appeal, yeah, he's fugded by the COA.

But, if enough judges were to rule this way, prosecutors may just give up.

Appeals are expensive, not just for the defendant.

Many prosecutor offices have an appeals dept that works on appeals full time. Appeals are not expensive for the prosecutor.

[CaveatLector]

it's interesting that this judge said medical use was 'statutorily' defined to include delivery and transfer....

 

as indicated in..." the clear language of the law"

 

kinda seems like the SC was on spot when they said their goal was to.." ascertain and give effect to the intent of the electorate" ....and give words of the MMMA ..." their ordinary and plain meaning as would be understood by the electorate"...(us)

 

and I applaud mr Newburgh for believing.." p-to-p transfers we're not only protected but authorized" by the MMMA

 

as a lot of us believe---

 

let's just be glad mr Newburgh arbitrated this case instead of mr knowles---

 

Arbitrated?

 

We don't know what Newburg "believes." His job isn't to argue what he believes it is to zealously advocate for his client.