A Michigan Supreme Court justice encouraged the Legislature to “modernize Michigan’s marijuana laws to bring clarity, coherence and fairness to an area of law that remains plagued by contradiction.”
Justice Kyra BOLDEN‘s comment comes in the court’s Friday order in People v. Soto, a case in which the defendant is charged with possession with intent to deliver between five and 45 kilograms of marijuana.
In the case, Bolden wrote that Michigan’s regulatory frameworks for medical and recreational marijuana “creates confusion that may yield harsh criminal consequences for nonviolent conduct” that falls outside of the recreation marijuana law, the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act’s (MRTMA) safe harbor.
At a preliminary examination, a Michigan State Police trooper testified that the Illinois State Police intercepted about 85 pounds of marijuana that was headed for southwest Michigan.
The driver, who cooperated with Illinois authorities, delivered the marijuana to a home in Niles. During that investigation, the trooper said officers found 20 pounds of marijuana, the majority of which was allegedly found in Julia Kathleen SOTO’s bedroom.
Soto fought the charges, arguing at one point that the MRTMA prohibited prosecution, but the trial court sided with the prosecution’s argument that the MRTMA did not address the issue. Rather, the trial court agreed, it fell under the Public Health Code (PHC).
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in a published October opinion, holding the MRTMA does not supersede the PHC.
The Supreme Court denied Soto’s appeal, saying it wasn’t persuaded it should answer the questions presented.
Bolden dissented, saying the “confusion created by the intersection of the PHC and the MRTMA,” as well as contradictory appeals opinions suggests the court should hear the appeal.
Bolden cited the court’s People v. Kejbou ruling in which an appeals panel held that the MRTMA “supplanted” portions of the PHC.
Details provided by Tim Beck of the Safer Michigan Coalition.