# People v. Lorentzen

> Michigan Supreme Court · March 9, 1972 · 387 Mich. 167

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721445

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Lorentzen
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 9, 1972
- **Citations:** 387 Mich. 167; 194 N.W.2d 827; 1972 Mich. LEXIS 158
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kavanagh
- **Judges:** Williams, Kavanagh, Brennan, Swainson, Adams, Black
- **Cited by:** 143 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721445

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 20 years for nonviolent crime of selling marijuana with no individualized consideration was cruel or unusual
- holding that a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison for selling any amount of marijuana constitutes cruel or unusual punishment
- holding that a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment before parole eligibility constituted cruel or unusual punishment

## Opinion text

T. G. Kavanagh, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I have signed my Brother Adams’ opinion for I agree with his reasoning and his conclusion that the mandatory 20-year minimum sentence is invalid as cruel and unusual punishment. I would go farther and set aside defendant’s conviction, and order his discharge, however, for I believe the statute under which he was convicted is constitutionally defective.
In People v Sinclair, 387 Mich 91 (1972) released today, I stated the conviction’ that the government has no constitutional authority to proscribe possession and private use of marijuana. The right to possess and use something, however, has little meaning unless one also has the right to acquire it, and hence proscription of sale cannot be reconciled with a right to possess and use.
It may be that some legitimate public interest may be served by the regulation of traffic in marijuana, but a statute which absolutely forbids the sale of marijuana is as offensive to the right of privacy and the pursuit of happiness as a statute which forbids its possession and use.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721445. Public record. Not legal advice.