Jump to content

Only Dried Marijuana Counts, Says Appeals Court


Recommended Posts

MILLINGTON – The Michigan appeals court has overturned a drug conviction in Tuscola County, saying not all marijuana is equal, especially in a medical marijuana case.

Sheriff’s deputies found marijuana in Johnnie Randall’s pickup truck and dozens of plants at a building in Millington, 30 miles northeast of Flint. He was accused of possessing too much pot by weight, despite having a medical marijuana card and permission to grow pot for others.

But the appeals court says only a portion of the marijuana was dried and usable. The court says Judge William Caprathe also was wrong to use the weight of leftover stems and stalks.

In a 3-0 decision, the court scratched Randall’s conviction this week.

 

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/01/16/dried-marijuana-counts-says-appeals-court/21852363/

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts for rationale on why the decision should be published:

 

1. The overwhelming agreement of the Appeals Court (3-0) presents a clear definition where there was previously ambiguity. Publishing the uniform definition will allow Judges to stop Prosecutors from filing erroneous charges and misapplying terms during proceedings. It will also prevent Judges from making the error that was made in this case during sentencing or other trial considerations.

 

2. Voter intent is being consistently ignored by Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement. This Appeals Court decision demonstrates that vital protection exists for citizens of the State of Michigan who are legally entitled to all protections of this voter approved legislation.

 

3. Misapplication of the central argument to this decision will result in convictions being overturned. The number of court cases pending that are impacted by this decision are sufficient to warrant publication.

 

4. This decision must be published in order to assist in preventing further misapplication of the law and unlawful prosecutions as deemed by the Appeals Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is to say which buds are RTU or not though ?

 

I choose to harvest so often it makes my head spin. I do this for the RTU issue. I know  wet ounces of mj will evaporate 75% o its water weight in less than a week in a "proper" drying environment. Using this I cut buds off of stems and dry in a hanging rack, with a scale at the top. I keep my wet weight lower than my allowable dry weight at all times. I don't harvest again till delivered. PITA for sure, but it lets me sleep at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much could be said on the topic from so many directions.

 

That's the problem when you've been trained to debate - you are required to take the affirmative or negative on every topic. I am rarely able to present an argument that I can't defeat. I am not unique in this, in fact, I think I'm universal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand why you do what you do gm, I'm on the exact same cycling, that said, it would be nice to allow for a long cure to help the patients looking for naturally decarbed cannabis. ThIs allows for a more natural expression of the traits, that some patients seek. On top of everything else, It would also help inexperienced caregivers, and people with unexpected issues, stay on top of their patients needs.

Edited by slipstar059
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were going to write a letter requesting publication pursuant to MCR 7.215(D), what would we say?

dunno zap, but you only have 18? days and counting... better get on it. do we have any examples of letters previously filed/sent to the court ? copy and paste :)

 

probably mention that it is a simple finding of law ruling that applies to other cases you have seen already. then of course list those cases in the letter, maybe attaching court transcripts of judges ruling on stalks , wet marijuana. i know you have plenty of cases where the court ruled weird bunny muffin with the definition of "usable".

 

mention that when you bring up an unpublished coa opinion, the courts have ignored your arguments based on those opinions (people v kiel).

 

 

uuuuuuhhhhhhh errrrrrrr make sure to compliment the panel on this ruling, how you think it applied and accurately judges the facts and the case at hand. and how this ruling will clear up a number of your cases as soon as it is published.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

slipstar I agree

I prefer the same as my patients do, and I don't think luck is at play with that luck, lol. I seek particular "patient chemotypes" to work with, ones that share my own. This makes for a simple time with treatments and choices. I grow the strains that are the best to treat my issues, and accept others with similar issues, voila!  no strain hunting for patients, no returns or disappointments typically, and easy work for me. 

Edited by grassmatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts for rationale on why the decision should be published:

 

1. The overwhelming agreement of the Appeals Court (3-0) presents a clear definition where there was previously ambiguity. Publishing the uniform definition will allow Judges to stop Prosecutors from filing erroneous charges and misapplying terms during proceedings. It will also prevent Judges from making the error that was made in this case during sentencing or other trial considerations.

 

2. Voter intent is being consistently ignored by Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement. This Appeals Court decision demonstrates that vital protection exists for citizens of the State of Michigan who are legally entitled to all protections of this voter approved legislation.

 

3. Misapplication of the central argument to this decision will result in convictions being overturned. The number of court cases pending that are impacted by this decision are sufficient to warrant publication.

 

4. This decision must be published in order to assist in preventing further misapplication of the law and unlawful prosecutions as deemed by the Appeals Court.

Very good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pleased with this result, but confused. Can anyone explain to me why this was overturned and dismissed via section 4 rather than remanded to a section 8? It seems inconsistent with the direction many of the other rulings have gone, narrowing 4 and expanding 8. This ruling expands 4. (It's a good thing but I'm not fully grasping the why of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you got me there. this ruling conflicts with carruthers.

the coa in carruthers did contemplate it though and found that carruthers' total brownie weight was more than 2.5oz per patient, which makes it a sec8...

 

funny enough this case was unpublished while carruthers is published.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Leo counted the stalks, Then they dried it ( that was not fit to be put in paper bags or sealed up was allowed to dry )

 

 

 

That is my take on it so far

 

This is a great ruling coming from the C.O.A the best one if not the only one the other good ruling are also unpublished i believe and i don't know if the case Zap has is in Oakland County or not if it is will that Judge let them bring it up ? because making case Law ant easy in that County imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They differ from the conclusion in Caruthers that if its not usable marijuana, it's marijuana. This court concluded it was.....what, not usable marijuana but not marijuana? What was it then, nothing? Garbage? Definitely not marijuana or it would of been remanded for section 8 as Caruthers was.

If they keep giving out these type's of ruilings Marihuana may be Legal  to Use and Grow for medical reasons  even inn Oakland County 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They differ from the conclusion in Caruthers that if its not usable marijuana, it's marijuana. This court concluded it was.....what, not usable marijuana but not marijuana? What was it then, nothing? Garbage? Definitely not marijuana or it would of been remanded for section 8 as Caruthers was.

 

If people haven't read this COA ruling it is fun and gets exciting very quickly. It reads like an adult speaking to a child slowly when defining what "dried" means.

 

Here is a link to Carruthers for those who want to compare the two:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20130711_c309987%2837%29_rptr_105o-309987-final.pdf

 

The Court saw the unusable marihuana as still being part of the "manufacture" of usable marihuana and thus protected from its innate illegality under the MMMA. This is explicitly noted at the end of the Randall opinion:

 

The act expressly allows under § 4 that “any marihuana. . . used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, . . . shall not be seized or forfeited.” MCL 333.26424(h) (emphasis added). This section broadly allows the possession of marijuana that is connected to medical use. A “connection” is “the act or state of connecting” or the “state of being connected.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997).

 

As discussed above, the drying plant material is a subordinate process between the licit cultivation of marijuana plants and usable marijuana. therefore, defendant was permitted to possess the plant material, and it should not have been seized. MCL 333.26424(h).

 

you got me there. this ruling conflicts with carruthers.

the coa in carruthers did contemplate it though and found that carruthers' total brownie weight was more than 2.5oz per patient, which makes it a sec8...

 

funny enough this case was unpublished while carruthers is published.

 

I don't see a conflict between the two. There is no question here that it is all flower and leaf. There are no chemists to analyze the mixture and not factor out the weight of flour, eggs and chocolate of a brownie as in Carruthers. I can follow the logic that the entire weight of the brownie constitutes "usable marihuana" as defined by the MMMA.

 

I have a fundamental problem with Carruthers in that the THC in the Brownie is a "preparation of the dried leaves and or flowers." This "preparation" is "usable marihuana" by definition. The ruling is that  this "usable marihuana" can not then be used in a mixture because it is no longer "dried leaves or flowers".

 

"Therefore, to constitute usable marijuana under the MMMA, any “mixture or preparation” must be of “the dried leaves or flowers” of the marijuana plant.  (From COA on Carruthers)

 

Further in the opinion is this gem:

That argument requires a circularity of reasoning that would read into the drafters’ definition of “usable marihuana” a component (resin) that the drafters expressly excluded.

 

Resin is expressly included in the drafters' definition of "usable marihuana" in fact the COA affirms this aspect of the "preparation" when they said "Therefore, to constitute usable marijuana under the MMMA, any “mixture or preparation” must be of “the dried leaves or flowers” of the mariuana plant.

 

Resin from the Stalks is not allowed. Anyone who understands BHO or CO2 extraction from leaves and flowers is aware that the end result would have to be considered a "preparation made of the dried leaves or flowers of the marijuana plant". Thus Carruthers teaches us to make small and light medibles to stay within allowed weight parameters.

 

Did Carruthers make medibles illegal by not allowing a "preparation" to be used in a "mixture" is the joiner an either or? I don't read those words but that seems a logical inference.

 

We also learn from this case to not be specific when talking to LEO. The entire chemistry aspect of the case reads like a bad Matlock script.

Edited by YesMichigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...