To prove the defendant unlawfully manufactured a controlled substance , the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of illegally manufacturing [(state weight) of a mixture containing]1 a controlled substance, ______________________. Manufacturing means producing or processing a controlled substance. It is alleged in this case that the defendant manufactured _________________________________ by [list specific acts].2 To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant manufactured a controlled substance.
(3) Second, that the substance manufactured was _______________________.
(4) Third, that the defendant knew [he / she] was manufacturing _______________.
[(5) Fourth, that the substance was in a mixture that weighed (state weight).]1
[(6) Fifth, that the defendant was not legally authorized to manufacture this substance.]3
[(7) Sixth, that the defendant was not (preparing / compounding) this substance for (his / her) own use.]4
1 Use the bracketed portion when the controlled substance is a narcotic drug classified in Schedule 1 or 2, or a cocaine-related substance as found in MCL 333.7214(a)(iv).
2 Such specific acts of manufacturing may include extraction from natural substances, chemical synthesis, packaging or repackaging the substance, or labeling or relabeling the container.
3 This paragraph should be given only when the defense has presented some competent evidence beyond a mere assertion that the defendant was authorized to possess the substance. If the defense presents such evidence, the prosecution must prove lack of authorization beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Pegenau, 447 Mich 278, 523 NW2d 325 (1994).
4 This paragraph should be given only if some evidence has been presented that the defendant prepared or compounded the substance for his or her own use.
M Crim JI 12.1 (formerly CJI2d 12.1) was CJI 12:2:00, 12:2:01, 12:2:02; amended June, 1991.
People v Marion, 250 Mich App 446, 617 NW2d 521 (2002); People v Hunter, 201 Mich App 671, 506 NW2d 611 (1993); People v Barajas, 198 Mich App 551, 499 NW2d 396 (1993), aff’d, 444 Mich 556, 557, 513 NW2d 772 (1994); People v Pearson, 157 Mich App 68, 72, 403 NW2d 498 (1987); People v Velasquez, 125 Mich App 1, 335 NW2d 705 (1983); People v Puertas, 122 Mich App 626, 332 NW2d 399 (1983); People v Stahl, 110 Mich App 757, 313 NW2d 103 (1981).
Michigan State Bar “Michigan’s model criminal jury instructions have been developed over the course of many years through the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions, and published by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education which has made them available to its subscribers and through individual purchase. Calling these instructions a “valuable tool,” the Michigan Supreme Court has concluded that they have acquired such widespread use and the utility for attorneys, litigants, and courts, the Court has now ordered that the use of will be freely available, and mandatory after March 1, 2014.”
Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.
If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.
Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation
Follow Komorn Law