People v. Kolanek; People v. King, 491 Mich. 382

This case consolidates challenges to the MMMA’s §8 medical-use defense (and related immunity §4) in two defendants, King and Kolanek.
§4 provides broad immunity for qualifying patients with registry cards; §8 provides a separate, limited defense for medical use regardless of registration.
In King, a registered patient grew marijuana and sought §8 dismissal; the Court of Appeals had held §8 requires §4 compliance.
In Kolanek, a non-registered patient sought §8 and argued physician statements before enactment could suffice; the district court denied the motion to dismiss.
The Court holds §8 does not require §4 compliance, and a physician’s §8(a)(1) statement must be after enactment but before the offense; pre-enactment statements are ineffective.
If §8 dismissal is denied at a pretrial evidentiary hearing with no material facts, the defense cannot be reasserted at trial; King is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §8 require §4 elements to be met?	King: §8 relies on §4.	Kolanek: §8 independent of §4.	No; §8 does not import §4 requirements.
When must §8(a)(1) physician statement be made?	Kolanek: postoffense statements acceptable.	No explicit retroactivity; timing uncertain.	Statement must be after MMMA enactment and before the offense.
Can defendant reassert §8 at trial after denial at hearing?	Kolanek: yes, at trial if denied.	Court should allow trial reassertion.	No; if no material facts, cannot retry §8 at trial; remand for hearing in King.
Is MMMA retroactive or prospective for §8 defense?	Kolanek: pre-enactment statements may work.		MMMA is prospective; pre-enactment statements cannot satisfy §8(a)(1).

People v Kolanek, 489 Mich 956 (2011) (establishes timing for §8(a)(1) and retroactivity stance)
People v King, 489 Mich 957 (2011) (remand for evidentiary §8 hearing; §8 does not require §4)
People v Reed, 294 Mich App 78 (2011) (supports admissibility of §8 defense where appropriate)