A defense under the compassionate use act is an affirmative defense which places the burden on the defendant to raise a reasonable doubt as to his or her guilt of unlawful possession or cultivation of marijuana, and CALJIC 12.24.1 accurately states the defendant’s burden. Moreover, the instructions defining “primary caregivers” do not include technical language requiring further definition, and defendant’s argument that the instructions should have been further amplified for clarity was waived due to his failure to request such clarification at trial. People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457 did not overrule the requirement from People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532 that the jury determine whether the amount of marijuana possessed was reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. The Medical Marijuana Program may be applied retroactively, but does not apply to the facts at issue in this case. Finally, the trial court did not err in refusing to hear an untimely motion to suppress filed two months after new counsel was retained, where the facts in support of that motion were known to the defendant and thus impliedly known to defense counsel.