## Facts

- John A. Sinclair lived at Detroit’s “Artists’ Workshop,” which undercover officers infiltrated during a narcotics investigation.
- Over several months, undercover officers repeatedly requested marijuana from Sinclair.
- On January 24, 1967, Sinclair was arrested and charged with unlawful sale and unlawful possession of two marijuana cigarettes.
- The trial court dismissed the sale count on entrapment grounds but submitted the possession count to the jury.
- The prosecution’s proof on possession rested largely on the testimony of two undercover officers; the cigarettes were not preserved and there was no corroborating documentation.
- Sinclair did not testify, in part due to potential impeachment by prior convictions.
- A jury convicted Sinclair of possession, and he received a sentence of 9½ to 10 years’ imprisonment under a statute treating marijuana as a “narcotic drug.”
- While the appeal was pending, Michigan enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, reclassifying marijuana and reducing penalties.

## Issues

1. Whether classifying marijuana as a “narcotic drug,” with severe penalties for simple possession, violated equal protection.
2. Whether evidence supporting the possession charge should have been excluded as the product of police entrapment.
3. Whether a 9½ to 10 year sentence for possession of two marijuana cigarettes constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
4. What effect, if any, subsequent legislative reclassification and penalty reduction for marijuana had on the constitutional validity of enforcing the prior statute against Sinclair.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court (per curiam, with separate concurring opinions) reversed Sinclair’s conviction, set it aside, and ordered him discharged.
- No single rationale commanded a majority; several concurrences collectively supported reversal and discharge.
- The Court’s result reflected constitutional objections to continued use of the prior marijuana statute against Sinclair, informed by scientific evidence, legislative reclassification, proportionality concerns, and the circumstances of the police operation.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal drug classification may violate equal protection when it lacks a rational basis in light of scientific understanding and the government’s own legislative treatment of the substance.
- Severe punishment for minor drug possession may be constitutionally disproportionate and may constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
- Persistent police solicitation and prolonged undercover inducement may support an entrapment-based challenge and can bear on the fairness and reliability of a conviction.
- Subsequent legislative reclassification and penalty reductions, while not necessarily applied retroactively as a statutory matter, may be probative in constitutional analysis of rationality and proportionality when evaluating enforcement of an earlier scheme.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and vacated Sinclair’s conviction for possessing two marijuana cigarettes and ordered his discharge, with concurring justices relying on overlapping constitutional concerns about irrational drug classification, disproportionate sentencing, and the fairness of the police tactics used to obtain the evidence.


People v. Sinclair, 387 Mich. 91, 194 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. 1972)