Michigan appellate courts issued several significant decisions refining how convictions are reviewed, when relief from judgment is appropriate, and how procedural errors must be preserved. These cases collectively clarify retroactivity, evidentiary‑weight standards, error preservation, and the treatment of newly discovered evidence.

• People v Shaver, No 361488, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Sept 5, 2024)
• People v Knepper, No 363191, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Sept 23, 2024)
• People v Nelson, No 166297, ___ Mich ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Mar 28, 2025)
• People v Bacall, No 369227, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Apr 14, 2025)
• People v Butsinas, No 364778, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (May 28, 2025)

In Shaver, the Court of Appeals held that People v Betts does not apply retroactively to convictions already final on appeal. Knepper reaffirmed that great‑weight challenges face “the highest” standard in Michigan law. Nelson confirmed that the Lukity test remains the governing standard for preserved nonconstitutional error. Bacall clarified how courts must evaluate recanting affidavits in post‑judgment motions. Butsinas held that issues raised for the first time posttrial are unpreserved and reviewed only for plain error.

Case Summary

In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was unconstitutional because it lacked a required subjective mental‑state element.

The Court of Appeals initially agreed, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v Colorado, which held that true‑threat statutes must require proof that the speaker had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statements.

The Michigan Supreme Court later vacated that decision and remanded the case. On remand, the Court of Appeals upheld the statute by applying the constitutional‑doubt canon and interpreting the law to include a recklessness requirement.

Background

Appeals serve as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and procedural unfairness. Michigan law distinguishes between:

• Preserved vs. unpreserved errors

• Direct appeals vs. collateral attacks

• Newly discovered evidence vs. credibility disputes

• Retroactive vs. prospective application of new legal rules

These distinctions determine whether a conviction stands or a defendant receives a new trial.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

Shaver: The trial court granted relief based on Betts, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Betts applies only prospectively.

Knepper: Despite inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the Court of Appeals held the evidence was not so lacking that the verdict constituted a miscarriage of justice.

Nelson: The Michigan Supreme Court declined to revisit Lukity, reaffirming that defendants must show it is more probable than not that an error affected the outcome.

Bacall: The Court of Appeals held that once a recanting affidavit is deemed not wholly incredible, the trial court must evaluate all evidence to determine whether a different result is probable at retrial.

Butsinas: Issues raised for the first time in a posttrial motion are unpreserved and reviewed only for plain error.

What’s at Stake

These decisions shape the boundaries of appellate relief:

• Retroactivity limits prevent reopening long‑final convictions.

• High evidentiary‑weight standards protect jury verdicts from being overturned lightly.

• Strict preservation rules encourage timely objections.

• Recantation standards ensure courts meaningfully evaluate new evidence without automatically granting retrials.

• Plain‑error review restricts relief when defendants fail to object at trial.

Together, these cases reinforce the structure and predictability of Michigan appellate practice.

In Closing

The appellate rulings in Shaver, Knepper, Nelson, Bacall, and Butsinas clarify how Michigan courts evaluate errors, evidence, and post‑judgment claims. They emphasize finality, procedural rigor, and careful scrutiny of new evidence, shaping the landscape for future appeals.

Relevant Laws, Cases and Articles

• MCL 28.721 et seq. — SORA
• People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021)
• People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)
• People v Shaver
• People v Knepper
• People v Nelson
• People v Bacall
• People v Butsinas

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550. 

New Coalition Forms To Support Voter Approved Cannabis Act

Michigan’s adult‑use cannabis framework was not created by accident. It was built through a deliberate, voter‑driven process culminating in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). The Act reflects years of public engagement, policy refinement, and a careful balancing of access, regulation, and individual rights. It remains one of the most comprehensive voter‑initiated cannabis systems in the country.

Today, that system faces a significant inflection point.

A Rapidly Forming Coalition Opposes Proposed License Caps

In recent weeks, a broad coalition of Michigan cannabis stakeholders has begun organizing in response to proposed legislation that would impose statewide license caps and population‑based limits on the adult‑use market. These proposals represent a substantial departure from the structure voters approved in 2018 and have raised concerns across sectors that rarely align.

What makes this coalition notable is its diversity. It is not driven by a single industry segment or political ideology. Instead, it includes:

• Long‑standing cannabis reform advocates
• Civil liberties organizations
• Small business owners and entrepreneurs
• Community leaders
• Policy experts and professionals
• Participants in the regulated market, both legacy and newly licensed

Some members have been involved in cannabis reform for decades; others entered the regulated system more recently, relying on the stability and predictability promised by the voter‑approved framework.

Concerns About Process, Policy, and Market Stability

The coalition’s position is not rooted in opposition to all regulatory change. Rather, it emphasizes that any major policy shift should be approached with transparency, data‑driven analysis, and meaningful stakeholder participation.

Several concerns have emerged:

1. License Caps Could Reshape the Market Without Clear Evidence of Benefit

Supporters of the coalition argue that there is limited evidence that license caps would meaningfully address pricing pressures or market imbalance. Instead, caps could restrict competition, reduce consumer choice, and undermine the open‑market principles embedded in the MRTMA.

2. Unintended Market Distortions Are Already Emerging

Public data and legislative commentary suggest that some applicants are now pursuing multiple licenses in anticipation of a potential moratorium—despite having no intent to operate them. This speculative behavior risks artificially inflating demand, distorting the licensing landscape, and destabilizing long‑term market conditions.

3. The Legislative Process Has Moved Too Quickly

Stakeholders report that discussions around license caps have advanced rapidly, often with limited notice and insufficient opportunity for public or industry input. This lack of transparency has reinforced the need for broader, more inclusive dialogue before any significant statutory changes are enacted.

A Purposefully Informal but Growing Coalition

At this stage, the coalition remains informal by design. Its focus is on:

• Identifying areas of shared concern
• Evaluating the full impact of proposed legislative changes
• Ensuring that Michigan’s cannabis policy remains grounded in voter intent
• Encouraging the use of existing regulatory tools before pursuing new statutory restrictions

As conversations continue, additional stakeholders who share these values may join the effort. The coalition’s goal is not rapid expansion but thoughtful engagement rooted in experience, evidence, and respect for the system Michigan voters approved.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the MRTMA and why is it central to this debate?

The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act is the voter‑approved law that legalized adult‑use cannabis. It established the regulatory framework, licensing structure, and market principles that the proposed license caps would significantly alter.

2. Why are stakeholders concerned about license caps?

Opponents argue that caps could restrict competition, reduce consumer access, and create artificial scarcity—without clear evidence that they would resolve pricing or market‑balance issues.

3. Are license caps common in other states?

Some states do impose caps, but Michigan intentionally chose an open‑market model. The coalition argues that shifting to a capped system would contradict voter intent and disrupt established business expectations.

4. What unintended consequences are already being observed?

There are indications that some applicants are securing multiple licenses solely to preserve future market position, not to operate. This speculative activity can distort market data and complicate regulatory planning.

5. What happens next?

The coalition plans to continue monitoring legislative developments, engaging policymakers, and advocating for data‑driven, transparent decision‑making. Formal organization may occur if the legislative process accelerates or if additional proposals emerge.

CANNRA Briefing on Trumps EO to change Cannabis to Schedule III – December 18 2025

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550. 

Case Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the City of Taylor must comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by the ACLU of Michigan seeking police misconduct records dating back to 2021.

The request covers documents involving allegations of racial profiling, racial discrimination, harassment, or excessive force by Taylor police officers.

Background

The ACLU filed a FOIA request seeking records related to police misconduct but was denied on the grounds that the request was overly broad and insufficiently specific. The ACLU argued that it could not provide more detail because it had never been allowed to view the records it sought

Court of Appeals Decision

In an unsigned opinion, a three‑judge panel rejected the city’s arguments and held that the FOIA request was sufficiently clear. The court emphasized that the request sought any documents “that relate, even minimally” to the listed categories of misconduct and criticized the city’s position as “mystifying”.

The court also rejected the city’s claim that the records were exempt due to a separate federal lawsuit involving police misconduct. The panel held that parallel litigation does not justify withholding public records under FOIA.

Reversal of Lower Court and Cost Award

The decision reverses a Wayne County Circuit Court ruling that had dismissed the FOIA case. The Court of Appeals ordered the City of Taylor to pay the costs associated with litigating the matter.

What Happens Next

The City of Taylor did not respond to inquiries regarding whether it plans to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Oh what secrets await to be revealed.

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550. 

Overview of the President’s December 18th Executive Order and the Implications When Marijuana is Rescheduled to Schedule III under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act

TOP-LINE SUMMARY

The President signed an Executive Order on December 18, 2025, ordering his administration to move expeditiously to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. A final rule to reschedule marijuana has not yet been issued by the Department of Justice. The timeline for a final rule remains unknown, and until there is a final rule, marijuana remains Schedule I.

Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III will:

• Remove the applicability of section 280E of the federal tax code, allowing marijuana businesses to deduct all standard business expenses in accordance with federal law, even if the Schedule III marijuana product is not a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug.
• Potentially make it easier to obtain and maintain a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration as a Schedule III research facility to research marijuana.Unless otherwise specified through new agency rules or policies, rescheduling marijuana will not:
• Change the federal status of state-regulated markets, which would remain non-compliant with U.S. federal law.
• Allow marijuana products that are not FDA-approved drugs to be prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition.
• Legalize interstate commerce. Interstate commerce of Schedule III drugs requires approval from the FDA, and necessary approvals and licenses under the Controlled Substances Act, as issued by DEA.
• Allow for the use of real-world cannabis products in human research, unless they meet FDA requirements for safety and quality through an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application.
• Change existing industry guidance from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), unless new guidance is released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
• Change federal drug testing requirements, unless otherwise specified by appropriate federal agencies.
• Change criminal penalties for individuals found to be trafficking marijuana.

Read the rest here (PDF)

CANNRA Briefing on Schedule III – December 18 2025

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.