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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
PEOPLE v. ORLOSKY 233Cal.App.4th257(2015) • 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 561 Evidence of formally organized collective was not required for collective marijuana cultivation defense to be applicable in trial for marijuana possession and cultivation. (Note: Pursuant to HS […]
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Borzou Bo BANIANI, Defendant and Appellant. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California. “Section 11362.775 was written to provide a defense to a charge of selling marijuana in […]
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 […]
People v. JOVAN CHRISTIAN JACKSON 210Cal.App.4th525 • D058988 (Super. Ct. No. SCD222793) “As we interpret the MMPA, the collective or cooperative association required by the act need not include active participation by all members in […]