TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    New hemp law
New hemp law Login/Join 
What is everyone planning to do with your post-June 10 marijuana cases?
Posts: 26 | Registered: December 05, 2016Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Shred them, roll them, and smoke them.

Looks like Tarrant County is dismissing them.

There's a fine only type provision in there for transporting hemp without proper documentation. I suppose on the side of the road if they say it's hemp, fine them.
Posts: 43 | Location: Brenham | Registered: March 24, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The marijuana laws are still in effect, as they should be. The last thing we need are more dopers in Texas. Marijuana, contrary to media reports, is not a health food. Therefore, just send every joint to the DPS lab for analysis. When they are over run with a massive backlog, go back to the legislature and ask them for a massive increase in the DPS lab capabilities--or change the law so that in a charge of POM it is an affirmative defense that the substance is legal hemp. Have the statute make it clear that tests of evidence to determine if the seized product is hemp on a defense motion for an indigent defendant will be added to court costs should the defendant be found guilty or be given deferred adjudication.
Posts: 686 | Location: Beeville, Texas, U.S.A. | Registered: March 22, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
So now the definition of “controlled substance” says that it doesn’t include “hemp” as defined by the agriculture code. In that code, “hemp” is Cannabis Sativa L with .3 THC or less.

The definition of marihuana hasn’t changed. And in that definition, there is still a laundry list of things that are not included in the definition of marijhuana, including stalks, that kind of stuff.

So is the .3 THC already an affirmative defense for all intents and purposes? Does the defense have to raise the issue for it to be an issue?

Keep going round in loops in my own head on this.
Posts: 195 | Location: Huntsville, TX | Registered: June 12, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
El Paso thinks it's the defendant's burden, but the case law behind that theory all ties to what you mention--weight and "usable quantity" issues. However, the chemical composition is neither of those, so it remains to be seen if the old cases will apply to the new problem.

But even if it is the defendant's burden, what then? Hervey's cc op in Saucedo last month says a defense lawyer is ineffective if he lets his client plead without a lab report, and if the client is indigent, you are right back where you started. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 2419 | Location: TDCAA | Registered: March 08, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    New hemp law

© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.