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
 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