norml23 - Page 6
Page 6
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
The court concluded: "We agree with the Illinois Supreme
Court in People v. McCabe, supra, that marijuana is improperly
classified as a narcotic and hold that [the Michigan statute
prohibiting possession of madjuana_ in its classification of
marijuana violates the equai protection clause of the U°So
Constitution..." ld. at 887. Subsequent Michigan decision
indicated that the McCabe holding, i.e., that mar!juana cannot
rationalJy be classified as a narcotic, has been adopted as a
matter of law. See People v. Waxman, 41 Micho Appo 277, 199
N.W.2d 884 (1972), rev'd on authority of Peopte vo Sinclair, 338
Mich. 774, 200 N.W.2d 322 (1972). See also, Peopie v. Griffin,
39 Mich. App. 464, 198 N.W.2d 740 (I 972)°
In State v. Carcus, 1 8 N.J. Super, 159, 286 A.2d 740 (1972),
Carcus was convicted of violation of a motor vehicle statute
which provided: "No person shah operate a motor vehicle on any
highway while knowingly having in his possession or in the motor
vehicle any narcotic drug within the meaning of section 24:1 8-2
of the Revised Statutes .... "Section 24:18-2 defined narcotic
drugs as including "coco leaves, opium, marijuana and every
substance not chemically distinguishable from them." Citing
empirical studies on the effects of marijuana and recent changes
in the state drug statute, the court held that marijuana coumd
not be classified as a narcotic drug within the meaning of the
motor vehicle statute.
In Sam Vo State, 500 P.2d 291 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1 972),
the defendant had been charged with possession of marijuana. At
the close of the evidence, the triat judge instructed the jury as
follows:
You are instructed that if you believe from the
evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant did. o. possessed (sic) a
narcotic drug, to wit: marihuana you shall find
the defendant guilty as charged in the
information° If you fail to so find, your verdict
shall be not guilty.
500 P.2d at 296.
Sam argued on appeal that the trial court erred in
instructing the jury that marijuana was a narcotic, and the Court
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index