Attorney Michael Komorn

Work History:

• 1993- Present – Law offices of Komorn Law, PLLC, Farmington Hills, MI
  Criminal Defense practice, with a primary focus since 2008 on Michigan’s Medical Marihuana laws, expanding into licensing pursuant to the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (“MMFLA”), Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (“MRTMA”), civil litigation, and business law.

• 1992-1993 – 36th District Court Misdemeanor Defender Office Staff Attorney.

Awards:

• 2016 – CDAM Right to Counsel Award – This award is given to an individual for a significant body of work, and is often triggered by an extraordinary case that is typical of that attorney’s career. This is typically a reflection of a lifetime of service to defendants and the criminal justice community. 

• 2016 – Michigan Norml Gaitwood-Galbraith Attorney of the Year Award

Profession Links:

• Linked In
• AVVO

Court of Appeals Marijuana Related Cases:

• People v Elllis, COA Case No. 312166

The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court to allow defendant to assert an affirmative defense pursuant to §8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. MCL 333.26428.

This case ultimately was dismissed pursuant to §8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

• People v Joslin, COA Case No. 341554

Holding that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offense of possession with intent to deliver marijuana under the aiding an abetting theory, when officers only witnessed the defendant at the facility once, but not at the time of the execution of the search warrant, and merely found a utility bill depicting the defendant’s name, resulting in the Court of Appeals vacating defendant’s conviction and sentence.

• People v Carruthers, COA Case No. 309987

Following trial and conviction for possession with intent to deliver marijuana, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court directing an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant can present an affirmative defense pursuant to §8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. MCL 333.26528. The Court further found that an edible product, namely brownies, were not considered “usable” marihuana pursuant to MCL 333.26423(k).

Following this case, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (“MMMA”), was amended to specifically provide for medical marihuana edible products as “usable marihuana” and provided for an equation to determine equivalency to usable weight of marihuana.

• People v Darling, COA Case No. 349947

Defendant was charged with delivery of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and possession of marijuana. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for immunity pursuant to §4 of the MMMA. MCL 333.26424. The Court of Appeals held that the non-MMMA compliant conduct in this case is the sale of marijuana to a confidential informant where the confidential informant was not one of the defendant’s registered patients. This conduct formed the basis of Count 1. However, the conduct that forms the basis for Count and 3 stems from defendant’s lawful possession at the time of the traffic stop. The Court went on to state that it is clear at all times during the traffic stop, defendant was in compliance with §4(a)-(c). The court ultimately held that the trial court erred by concluding that there was a nexus between defendant’s non-MMMA-compliant conduct and the MMMA-compliant conduct that formed the basis for Count 2 and 3, and therefore dismissed Counts 2 and 3.

• People v Tasselmyer, Court of Appeals Case No. 353404

The Court of Appeals found that immunity pursuant to the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act grants similar immunity pursuant to §4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and is therefore a question of fact that should be determined prior to trial.

• People v Thue, Court of Appeals Case No. 353978

The Court of Appeals found that the provisions of the Michigan Probation Act that allows a court to prohibit a probationer’s MMMA-compliant use of marijuana impermissibly conflicts with MCL 333.26427(a) and (e) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and are unenforceable. Further, the Court held that revocation of probation under the MMMA-complaint use of marijuana constitutes a “penalty” in violation of MCL 333.26424(a) of the MMMA. The Court concluded that the district court erred in prohibiting defendant from MMMA-compliant marijuana use as a term of probation and that defendant’s motion to modify the terms of his probation to allow him to use medical marihuana should have been granted.

Other Marijuana Related Cases:

• People v Goupil, Case No., 11-2145-FH

This case was ultimately dismissed pursuant to an invalid and unconstitutional search of the defendant’s home.

• People v Goupil, Case No. 11-ST-119

Following a jury trial, the defendant was ultimately found not guilty.

• People v Abro, Case No. C-18-0381-FY

The defendant was charged with delivery of marijuana. This case resulted in all charges being dismissed on or about April 18, 2019.

• People v Avery, Case No. 18-0260-SM

Defendant was charged with possession of marihuana or synthetic equivalent. Following an evidentiary hearing pursuant to §4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, all charges were dismissed.

• People v Ballard, Case No. 18-003964-FH

The defendant was charged with delivery/manufacture of marijuana and was ultimately dismissed on or about August of 2018 as a result of Defendant’s motion.

• People v Bates, Case No. 15-741-FH

Defendant was charged with delivery/manufacture of marijuana. Following a Section §8 evidentiary hearing, resulting in a question of fact for the jury and the inability to present a the §8 affirmative defense, the People offered defendant a misdemeanor, which defendant ultimately accepted.

• People v Berry, Case No. 16-0557910-FY

Order of Nolle Pros was signed on March 14, 2016.

• People v Berry, Case No. 16-0476-FY and 17-024612-FH

Defendant faced various marijuana charges, and ultimately pled to a Civil Infraction, resulting in a $1.00 fine.

• People v Tasselmyer, Case No. 19-000219-FH

Defendant was charged with controlled substance – delivery / mfg of marijuana. An order of Nolle Pros was signed on April 1, 2021.