Wednesday, July 24, 2013

King Of The Castle Doctrine - Firearms in Home - Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney, Josh Jones


The “king of the castle” defense is a very long running piece of law in Michigan. What it means is that if you are in your home and believe that you are in danger because another person has entered your home you are allowed to use deadly force. Because of this law, you would have a defense if you were ever charged with injuring the individual or killed him or her.

Moreover, Michigan allows an individual to use deadly force when he or she is in a position where they are unable to retreat and reasonable believe that he or she is facing life threating danger. This can occur in any place, even if open to the public. Of course, a case involving this type of defense will be based upon the circumstances and facts.

It is always advised to flee when you are put into a position that could be life threatening. However, Michigan does allow an individual to have options when put into such a position. They are not guaranteed, but there in the right circumstances.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Michigan Medical Marihuana - People v Nicholson - MMMA Cardholders - Patients and Caregivers - Criminal Defense Lawyer, Josh Jones


A short yet important topic that impacts Michigan Medical Marijuana patients and caregivers revolves around medical marijuana cards and paperwork. The Court of Appeals indicated that patients and caregivers must have their paper or medical marijuana card on them in order to receive protection under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). See People v Nicholson.

The facts of the case, in Nicholson, indicated that the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle and was holding one ounce of marijuana. The defendant had applied for his medical marijuana card, yet he had not received actually it. Moreover, the paperwork that indicating he was authorization to use medical marijuana was in his own vehicle, which they were not driving at the time of the arrest.

The court inevitably concluded that immunity would not be granted to the defendant because he did not have his paperwork accessible to him at the time of arrest. However, the court went on to indicate that the defendant is immune from prosecution because he does possess his card prior to the time of prosecution. The court inevitably remanded the case back to the circuit court for further investigation into whether the activities on the date of arrest involved the medical use of marijuana.

Therefore, the issue, in Nicholson, came down to whether he had his card/paperwork prior to prosecution and whether his actions that lead to his arrest qualify as medical use as indicated in the MMMA. It should be noted that the defendant was arrested because he did not have his paperwork on him, which any medical marijuana patient and/or caregiver should take note of. You should ALWAYS carry your paperwork or card, even if you are not holding.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Nuisance Parties - Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer, Josh Jones - July 23, 2013


Nuisance Parties - What Are They?
No one ever thinks about a party getting out of control, but it does and will happen, eventually. Nuisance parties can happen anywhere and at anytime. They are not limited to college towns, those over the age of 21, and can involve many situations and circumstances. Understand the consequences before inviting those hundred or few friends over for a "gathering."
A social gathering will turn into criminal charges if or when it becomes uncontrollable. More specifically, a nuisance party will exist if one or more of the following occurs:
   Unlawful sale, furnishing or consumption of alcohol;
   public drinking or drunkenness;
   public urination or defecation;
   littering, fights, destruction of property, loud noise or other forms of public disturbances; or
   any other conduct that annoys or endangers the public or results in obscene or indecent behavior.

A nuisance party citation typically stems from local or city ordinances, and thus the fines and possible repercussions can and will very from area to area. A party may get out of hand, cops called, and individual's cited (including you the home owner), but that does not mean that all hope is lost.
Remember, the Law Office of JoshJones is here for you day or night, no matter the party size, the age of the client or crime committed. 

Monday, July 22, 2013

Importance - Traffic Stop - Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney, Josh Jones - July 22, 2013


Initial Traffic Stop - Importance
Not all individuals drive a motor vehicle, but it sure seems like it. With that said, many instances that involve Police Officers occur when an individual is driving on the roadways.  Police have a wide discretion when it comes to stopping a motor vehicle.
A Police Officer must have witnessed a traffic violation when making a traffic stop; this will continue to be effective when or if the officer has ulterior motives prior to making the stop. Therefore, once the police have a valid reason, such as a traffic violation, he or she is able to pursue his or her own investigation of the activities occurring inside that particular vehicle.
When looking at cases involving traffic stops, Defense Attorneys will start at the beginning. “Why was my client initially stopped or pulled over?” If the initial traffic stop is not valid, because there was no reason for pulling the vehicle over, then a crime that the police discovered after the stop may be precluded from being entered into evidence at trial. If this occurs the more serious crime that particular individual was facing could be dismissed.
With all of this said, it is important to know that police will be able to stop a vehicle for numerous or voluminous reasons. This rule of law is one of the first thought of by any Defense Attorney when he or she has a client that is charged with a crime that involved a motor vehicle.
PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.

Judges & Medical Marihuana Immunity [People v Jones] - MMMA Case - Michigan Criminal Lawyer, Josh Jones


Judges Deciding Immunity - People v Jones

On July 9, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals brought about further interpretation on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). More specifically, People v Jones explained that the decision of Section 4 Immunity is left up to the judge, but in what cases or circumstances?

Generally, an issue of fact (or a factual issue) is to be decided by a Jury (or the trier of fact), yet an issue of law (or a legal issue) is to be decided by the judge. This is long standing procedure. However, here in the State of Michigan and in certain situations and instances a judge still determines factual issues within a case. These situations include entrapment, voluntariness of statements, suppression of physical evidence, or consenting to search, to name a few.

The issues at hand in the Jones case dealt with whether or not the Defendant was a resident of the State at the time of her application and whether she was possessing marihuana for the medical use as a caregiver and patient.

The court paralleled Section 4 to the Entrapment Defense, and ultimately determined that Section 4 “fact-finding is a question for the trial court to decide. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision finding that [Section] 4 immunity fact-finding is a question for the jury is reversed.” Jones

Friday, July 19, 2013

Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney, Josh Jones - Outlining Minor-In-Possession of Alcohol [MIP]


Minor-In-Possession of Alcohol -- It Happens A Lot 

The State of Michigan takes a strong stance on alcohol and drug related criminal offenses. This is shown by the zero-tolerance law followed when it comes to underage drinking, coined Minor in Possession (MIP).

If convicted of an MIP an individual can face a maximum $100 fine for his or her first offense, which may include rehabilitative treatment or prevention program, performing community service, and possible drug an/or alcohol screening, which would all be payable by the convicted defendant.

The one thing to remember is that underage drinkers have options when or if convicted of an MIP. In most instances, the minor will be granted into a diversion program. This means that the minor will be on probation for a specified time (usually around six-months) and upon successful completion of his or her probationary period the minor will have the case automatically dismissed by the prosecutor. Moreover, successful completion of probation will include completing all the terms of probation (ordered by the court or the designated probation officer) and paying all fines and costs issued by the court.

Facing any criminal charge (whether it is a felony or misdemeanor) can feel devastating. However, it does have to feel that way. With the right lawyer standing by you and walking with you through the court process you all your worries will be subsided. Call the Law Office of Josh Jones today for your free consultation. We focus on solutions, not problems.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Larceny - Property Of Another Outlined - Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer, Josh Jones


Larceny - Taking Property of Another 
The crime of larceny can loosely be defined as the taking of something from another. The State of Michigan makes this particular area of law somewhat complex. This is not because the law itself is confusing, but rather there are numerous variations of punishment based upon the circumstances of the individual case.
First and foremost, MCL 750.356 states that “[a] person who commits larceny by stealing any of the following [pieces of] property of another person is guilty of a crime,” which includes:
(a) Money, goods, or chattels.
(b) A bank note, bank bill, bond, promissory note, due bill, bill of exchange or other bill, draft, order, or certificate.
(c) A book of accounts for or concerning money or goods due, to become due, or to be delivered.
(d) A deed or writing containing a conveyance of land or other valuable contract in force.
(e) A receipt, release, or defeasance.
(f) A writ, process, or public record.
(g) Nonferrous metal.
Once the property falls within one of the above categories, an individual charged with larceny will face, if convicted, MCL 750.356 brings about one of the following punishments:
1.     [A] person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property stolen, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine . . . [if t]he property stolen has a value of $20,000.00 or more.
2.     [A] person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property stolen, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine . . . [if t]he property stolen has a value of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.
3.     [A] person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property stolen, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine . . . [if t]he property stolen has a value of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
4.     If the property stolen has a value of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the value of the property stolen, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.
Moreover, if an individual is convicted of a subsequent larceny charge than he or she will face an even hasher punishment than noted above. This is common in Michigan. The more crimes you commit the higher the sentencing exposure.  
Learn the law, maintain your rights, and lawyer-up. Whose got your back? 
PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.