Issues: Failure to assert a defense under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) (MCL 333.26421 et seq.); Immunity under MMMA § 4; MCL 333.26424(a) & (b); People v. Hartwick; Failure to raise a futile argument; People v. Ericksen; Affirmative defense under MMMA § 8; MCL 333.26428;People v. Bylsma; Prosecutorial error; People v. Dobek; People v. Callon; People v. Thomas
Holding that Defendant’s arguments for immunity or an affirmative defense under the MMMA were futile, and that the prosecutor did not commit error during closing argument, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions of manufacturing a controlled substance and marijuana possession. As to immunity under MMMA § 4, there was no evidence that he “had a registry card as either a qualifying patient or caregiver.” While there was some indication in the record that he “stated that he had applied for a card after submitting the necessary paperwork, no evidence was proffered at trial or in this appeal to support this assertion. Since defendant could not establish the essential elements of immunity” under MMMA § 4, such an argument “was futile and defense counsel was under no obligation to pursue it.” The court also concluded that there was no basis to assert an MMMA § 8 affirmative defense. No evidence was presented at trial or on appeal that he met the requirements of MCL 333.26428(a)(1) or (2)....Affirmed.