People v. Selman

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Selman

872 N.W.2d 487, 498 Mich. 953

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 23, 2015

DocketNo. 147689; Court of Appeals No. 316389

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 872 N.W.2d 487 (People v. Selman) 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. Selman, 872 N.W.2d 487, 498 Mich. 953 (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). On order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 27, 2015, 498 Mich 192 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse that part of the trial court’s ruling that allows the defendant to present at trial his § 8 affirmative defense under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq. Because the defendant failed to present prima facie evidence of each element of § 8(a), the defendant is not entitled to present a § 8 defense at trial. Hartwick, 498 Mich at 203. We remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with Hartwick or this order.

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

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). On order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 27, 2015, 498 Mich 192 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse that part of the trial court’s ruling that allows the defendant to present at trial his § 8 affirmative defense under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq. Because the defendant failed to present prima facie evidence of each element of § 8(a), the defendant is not entitled to present a § 8 defense at trial. Hartwick, 498 Mich at 203. We remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with Hartwick or this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 N.W.2d 487, 498 Mich. 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-selman-mich-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack