By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
The state’s probation law cannot ban marijuana use only because of it being illegal under federal law, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In People v. Hess (SC Docket No. 167895), the Supreme Court said the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, which broadly allows cannabis use for those older than 21, trumps the state’s probation act.
The state’s probation act prohibits probationers from violating federal law, which allows – or requires, some argued – sentencing courts to prohibit marijuana use as a probation condition.
Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote for the unanimous court, ruling the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that prohibiting otherwise legal marijuana use is a mandatory condition of probation.
The court did not rule on whether a court can restrict marijuana use as part of a discretionary, tailored probation condition.
Welch wrote the MRTMA includes a provision that blocks state law inconsistent with its provisions legalizing marijuana use. The court ruled it controls over the state’s probation act.
“The probation act’s absolute bar on MRTMA-compliant marijuana use is inconsistent with the MRTMA’s stated intent as well as its express dictates,” the opinion says.
The Michigan Supreme Court also issued a unanimous decision in People v. Klungle (SC Docket No. 168010-1) on Monday.
Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, writing for the court, wrote that the trial counsel’s decision to concede the guilt of the defendant during closing statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to autonomy to obtain innocence as the objective of the defense.
In the case, Klungle consistently asserted his innocence only to have his attorney admit his guilt to the jury for the first time during closing arguments. Klungle lived at a home with his grandmother before she died. She did not have a will and the home went to her children, who sought to evict Klungle. He maintained he was not trespassing, and his attorney during closing arguments said the evidence showed he did trespass.
The unanimous opinion ruled the concession constituted a structural error. The court vacated the conviction and sentence.
Gongwer News Service
The state’s probation law cannot ban marijuana use only because of it being illegal under federal law, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In People v. Hess (SC Docket No. 167895), the Supreme Court said the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, which broadly allows cannabis use for those older than 21, trumps the state’s probation act.
The state’s probation act prohibits probationers from violating federal law, which allows – or requires, some argued – sentencing courts to prohibit marijuana use as a probation condition.
Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote for the unanimous court, ruling the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that prohibiting otherwise legal marijuana use is a mandatory condition of probation.
The court did not rule on whether a court can restrict marijuana use as part of a discretionary, tailored probation condition.
Welch wrote the MRTMA includes a provision that blocks state law inconsistent with its provisions legalizing marijuana use. The court ruled it controls over the state’s probation act.
“The probation act’s absolute bar on MRTMA-compliant marijuana use is inconsistent with the MRTMA’s stated intent as well as its express dictates,” the opinion says.
The Michigan Supreme Court also issued a unanimous decision in People v. Klungle (SC Docket No. 168010-1) on Monday.
Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, writing for the court, wrote that the trial counsel’s decision to concede the guilt of the defendant during closing statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to autonomy to obtain innocence as the objective of the defense.
In the case, Klungle consistently asserted his innocence only to have his attorney admit his guilt to the jury for the first time during closing arguments. Klungle lived at a home with his grandmother before she died. She did not have a will and the home went to her children, who sought to evict Klungle. He maintained he was not trespassing, and his attorney during closing arguments said the evidence showed he did trespass.
The unanimous opinion ruled the concession constituted a structural error. The court vacated the conviction and sentence.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
