People v. Overholt

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Overholt

871 N.W.2d 158, 498 Mich. 914, 2015 Mich. LEXIS 2608

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

Docket149795; Court of Appeals 321556

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 871 N.W.2d 158 (People v. Overholt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Overholt, 871 N.W.2d 158, 498 Mich. 914, 2015 Mich. LEXIS 2608 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the defendant, who sold, transferred, or delivered marijuana to a patient or caregiver to whom he was not connected through the registration process of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., “may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).” MCL 333.26428(b). Cf., State v McQueen, 493 Mich 135, 156 ns 59 & 60 (2013). In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We further order that this case be argued and submitted to the Court of Appeals together with the case of People v Bylsma (Docket No. 148440), which we remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted by order of the same date, at such future session of the Court of Appeals as both cases are ready for submission. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the defendant, who sold, transferred, or delivered marijuana to a patient or caregiver to whom he was not connected through the registration process of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., “may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).” MCL 333.26428(b). Cf., State v McQueen, 493 Mich 135, 156 ns 59 & 60 (2013). In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We further order that this case be argued and submitted to the Court of Appeals together with the case of People v Bylsma (Docket No. 148440), which we remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted by order of the same date, at such future session of the Court of Appeals as both cases are ready for submission. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 N.W.2d 158, 498 Mich. 914, 2015 Mich. LEXIS 2608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-overholt-mich-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack