without a valid license and sought an order from the trial court allowing him to use medical marijuana while on probation. Te Court noted that at the time of sentencing, defendant possessed a valid registry identification card for the medicinal use of marijuana, issued pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.3, but the court nonetheless denied defendant’s motion to allow him to use medical marijuana while on probation. What is interesting is that the court did not deny defendant’s request because the use would be a violation of federal law, and thereby a violation of probation, contrary to MCL 771.3(1) (a). “Rather, the trial court analyzed the circumstances of defendant’s specific case and concluded that defendant was not an appropriate candidate to use marijuana while on probation.”39
Defendant applied
for a new card approximately one month aſter he was arrested for the offenses and had a history of abusing both alcohol and marijuana which included a prior conviction for conspiring to deliver marijuana. “In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to use medical marijuana while on probation. Te trial court considered the need to provide defendant with pain treatment, but it also took into consideration additional factors, such as defendant’s history of substance abuse, the need to deter additional criminality, and the need to protect the public from further crimes by defendant. Defendant has failed to offer any persuasive argument for the proposition that the MMMA prohibits a trial court from ever imposing a probationary condition barring the use of medical marijuana. Te challenged probationary condition is reasonably related to the goal of defendant’s rehabilitation, including preventing future criminality, as well as protecting the public.”40 In October 2019, several medical marijuana patients “challenged a
www.datia.org
Pennsylvania county’s new policy that people on probation and other forms of court supervision may not use the drug, even if they are in the state registry.41 Te ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit arguing the policy contradicts legal-immunity provisions in the state’s 2016 medical marijuana law and they are also seeking class action status. Te new policy said that “marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and that the court and probation department ‘should not knowingly allow violations of the law to occur.’ . . . Te lawsuit notes that the county’s new policy does not prevent those on court supervision from using opioids, antipsychotics and “other medications that pose a significant risk of harm.”42 Ten there are cases that instead of
focusing on the underlying conviction or the state medical marijuana law, they rely upon the sole discretion of the Court. For example, in People v. Stanton, County Court, Sullivan County, New York,43 the defendant was convicted, upon plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the second degree, and was sentenced to six months’ incarceration with credit for time served, ten years of felony probation with Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), sex offender conditions, drug and alcohol conditions, and mental health evaluations and conditions. Defendant moved to amend order and conditions of probation to allow him to use medical marijuana during probationary period. Te Court held, as mater of first impression, that the amendment of conditions of probation to allow defendant to use medical marijuana during probationary sentence was appropriate. Te rationale was that the trial court has sole discretion in implementing probation as it deems reasonably necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so. In California, if the Court desires to rely upon its discretion in making the decision on medical
marijuana use while on probation, it needs to do more than just reiterating that it has sole-discretion or they will find the case remanded for an analysis supporting that discretion. For example, in People v. Pritchard,44
the trial court either failed to
exercise its discretion or did so arbitrarily; either circumstance constitutes an abuse of discretion. Te court’s only stated reason for denying defendant’s request to use medical marijuana while on probation did not consider defendant, his crime, or his individual circumstances. By declaring, “I’m not going to confirm anybody’s need for medical marijuana,” the court indicated it would deny such a request without regard to the circumstances. Tat was an abuse of discretion. Te appeals court stated that the mater must be remanded. In People v. Moret,45
the California
Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s conduct raised a genuine question about his honesty and the trial court doubted defendant’s claim that he needed medical marijuana for self-purported migraine headaches. Te Court stated that “it has long been the law in California that a trial court is vested with substantial discretion in deciding the appropriate conditions of probation in any individual case.”46 InMoret, the Court further justified their rationale by comparing the Court’s discretion on the use of medical marijuana to the use of prescription medications. Te Court stated that “[t]here may well be circumstances under which a trial court may properly ban even a prescription drug as a condition of probation.”47 Tere are other Courts that treat the
use of medical marijuana use while on probation in the same manner as the use of any prescription medication. In Oregon, the Courts have a special condition for probation that prohibits a defendant from possessing or consuming marijuana and participating in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP). In State v. Fryer, the Court of Appeals of Oregon48
datia focus 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
