top of page

Defendant Entitled to Immunity Under MMMA


Case: People v. Rocafort (Unpublished Opinion)


The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) (MCL 333.26421 et seq.); § 4 immunity; MCL 333.26424; Usable marijuana defined; MCL 333.26423(n); People v. Manuel


On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Manuel, the court concluded that this case was factually indistinguishable from Manuel and held that defendant was entitled to immunity under MMMA § 4. Thus, it vacated her convictions and remanded for dismissal of the charges. She was convicted of unlawful manufacture of marijuana, unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and knowingly keeping or maintaining a drug house. Defendant harvested her marijuana plants, placed the harvested leaves in “canisters as part of the drying process, and the marijuana was then seized by the police, at which point in time, according to the trial court, the ‘marijuana was largely dried,’ with, at best, another day or two of drying to go.” The evidence showed that while the drying process “was nearing the end, it was not completed.” Because the marijuana was still in the process of drying when police seized it, the largely dried marijuana “did not constitute ‘usable’ marijuana. Under the analysis in Manuel and given that all of the charges against defendant were based on marijuana that was still in the process of being dried,” she was entitled to immunity under MMMA § 4 and thus, the trial court erred in failing to dismiss all of the charges.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page