Michigan v. Hartwick
Michigan Supreme Court
870 N.W.2d 37, 498 Mich. 192 (2015)
- Written by Patrick Speice, JD
Facts
Richard Hartwick (defendant) was charged with several marijuana offenses after police found dozens of marijuana plants in Hartwick’s home. Hartwick moved to dismiss the charges under two provisions in Michigan’s medical-marijuana law. First, the law immunized registered qualifying patients who use marijuana for a medical purpose and registered primary caregivers from prosecution for possessing 2.5 ounces of marijuana or less and up to 12 locked-up marijuana plants. Second, the law established an affirmative defense for patients and primary caregivers who possessed a reasonable amount of marijuana to continuously treat a patient when a physician comprehensively assessed the patient and advised that the patient would likely benefit from using medical marijuana to treat a serious or debilitating condition. At an evidentiary hearing, Hartwick proved he was a registered qualifying patient and primary caregiver to other registered medical-marijuana users. However, Hartwick could not identify the others’ physicians or medical conditions. The trial court denied Hartwick’s motion, the appellate court affirmed, and Hartwick appealed. The Michigan Supreme Court considered Hartwick’s appeal along with that of another similarly situated defendant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zahra, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.