California legislated possession limits unconstitutional

People v. Kelly: Voters allowed patients any reasonable amount of cannabis

“Although the jury was properly instructed that defendant could possess an amount of marijuana reasonably related to his current medical needs, the prosecutor improperly argued that eight ounces—but no more—was “reasonable” in the absence of a doctor’s recommendation, which defendant did not have. This was prejudicial error.”

Continue reading California legislated possession limits unconstitutional

California cannabis patients entitled to reasonable amount

People v. Trippet

“The rule should be that the quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. What precisely are the “patient’s current medical needs” must, of course, remain a factual question to be determined by the trier of fact.”

Continue reading California cannabis patients entitled to reasonable amount

California caregivers may receive compensation

Lungren v. Peron (1997): Prop 215 did not legalize sales or dispensaries.  

“Although the sale and distribution of marijuana remain as criminal offenses under section 11360, bona fide primary caregivers for section 11362.5 patients should not be precluded from receiving bona fide reimbursement for their actual expense of cultivating and furnishing marijuana for the patient’s approved medical treatment.” … “A primary caregiver who consistently grows and supplies physician-approved or -prescribed medicinal marijuana for a section 11362.5 patient is serving a health need of the patient, and may seek reimbursement for such services.”

Who qualifies as a “caregiver”? Probably not you. Read People v Mentch (2008)

First Dist., Div. Five. Dec 12, 1997.] “Caregiver” vs, “Drug House” definitions discussion Remuneration, or payment for services discussion Continue reading California caregivers may receive compensation

California prosecutors must prove nonmedical purpose

People v. Mower 

“We conclude that, under general principles of California law, the burden of proof as to the facts underlying the section 11362.5(d) defense may, and should, be allocated to a defendant, but the defendant should be required merely to raise a reasonable doubt as to those facts rather than to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence.” … “As we shall explain, we believe that section 11362.5(d) reasonably must be interpreted to grant a defendant a limited immunity from prosecution, which not only allows a defense at trial, but also permits a motion to set aside an indictment or information prior to trial.”

Continue reading California prosecutors must prove nonmedical purpose

Localities can ban cannabis collectives, dispensaries

Inland Empire Patients, et al., v Riverside

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA: “The issue in this case is whether California‘s medical marijuana statutes preempt a local ban on facilities that distribute medical marijuana. We conclude they do not.”

Continue reading Localities can ban cannabis collectives, dispensaries