The judge's role in a Medical Marijuana Section 8 motion.

In People v Anderson, __ Mich App __ (#300641, 9/18/2012) the defendant was arrested after police officers discovered marijuana plants and plant material in his home in June 2009. The prosecutor charged him with manufacturing marijuana, see MCL 333.7401(1) and (2)(d)(iii), and the district court bound Anderson over for trial in March 2010. Id. at 41. In April 2010, Anderson moved for dismissal of the charge under § 8 of the Medical Marijuana Act. Id. at 41-42.

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals further remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing under People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (2012).  As set forth in Kolanek, the trial court’s role at the evidentiary hearing is limited: it must determine whether the defendant has presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant established the elements of his or her § 8 defense and then determine, given the evidence presented at the hearing, if there is a material factual dispute concerning one or more of those elements. Id. at 411-413. The trial court may not weigh the evidence, assess credibility, or resolve factual disputes at the hearing. Id. at 411 (“Questions of fact are the province of the jury, while questions of law are reserved to the courts.”). Rather, the trial court must determine—as a matter of law—if the defendant established his or her right to have the charges dismissed under § 8, or if there are material factual disputes that must be resolved by a jury. Id. at 411-413.