elected case law for Marijuana
https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SCOUI-Legislative-Report-01.01.18-Final.pdf
Comm. v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (2011). "[T]here was no basis on which the police could order the defendant out of the vehicle
without at least some other additional fact beyond the mere odor of burnt marijuana... in light of the enactment of G.
L. c. 94C, §§ 32L-32N ,..., which decriminalized
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana."
Commonwealth v. Gerhardt, 477 Mass. 775 (2017)
"[T]here is as yet no scientific agreement on whether, and, if so, to what extent, [field sobriety] tests are indicative of marijuana intoxication...Neither a police officer nor a lay witness who has not been qualified as an expert may offer an opinion as to whether a driver was under the influence of marijuana." A police officer may testify, however, about his or her observations, including observations of the defendant's performance on requested behaviors. Includes new Model Jury Instruction Regarding Roadside Assessments for Use in Prosecutions for Operating Under the Influence of Marijuana.
Comm. v. Keefner, 461 Mass. 507 (2012). The law which "decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, did not repeal the offense of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of G. L. c.94C, § 32C (a), where the amount of marijuana possessed is one ounce or less."
Comm. v. Richardson, 479 Mass. 344 (2018)
Addresses the prosecution of a person for trafficking in marijuana where that person was legally permitted to grow marijuana for medical purposes. Includes new model jury instructions.
Comm. v. Rodriguez, 472 Mass. 767 (2015). The mere odor of burnt marijuana is insufficient cause to stop a motor vehicle.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/64/64massappct70.html
Commonwealthv. Shellenberger, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 70, 76 (2005), which suggested that evidence of the presence of a drug in a defendant’s systemrequires evidence of the concentration of the drug as a precondition to admissibility.
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana."
Commonwealth v. Gerhardt, 477 Mass. 775 (2017)
"[T]here is as yet no scientific agreement on whether, and, if so, to what extent, [field sobriety] tests are indicative of marijuana intoxication...Neither a police officer nor a lay witness who has not been qualified as an expert may offer an opinion as to whether a driver was under the influence of marijuana." A police officer may testify, however, about his or her observations, including observations of the defendant's performance on requested behaviors. Includes new Model Jury Instruction Regarding Roadside Assessments for Use in Prosecutions for Operating Under the Influence of Marijuana.
Comm. v. Keefner, 461 Mass. 507 (2012). The law which "decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, did not repeal the offense of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of G. L. c.94C, § 32C (a), where the amount of marijuana possessed is one ounce or less."
Comm. v. Richardson, 479 Mass. 344 (2018)
Addresses the prosecution of a person for trafficking in marijuana where that person was legally permitted to grow marijuana for medical purposes. Includes new model jury instructions.
Comm. v. Rodriguez, 472 Mass. 767 (2015). The mere odor of burnt marijuana is insufficient cause to stop a motor vehicle.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/64/64massappct70.html
Commonwealthv. Shellenberger, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 70, 76 (2005), which suggested that evidence of the presence of a drug in a defendant’s systemrequires evidence of the concentration of the drug as a precondition to admissibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment