Skip to content
Name: People v. Ahmed
Case #: A149066
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 06/19/2018

A city or county ordinance banning marijuana dispensaries does not abrogate the medical marijuana defense in a prosecution under state criminal law. Ahmed operated a medical marijuana business in Livermore, which has a municipal ordinance that prohibits marijuana dispensaries. After an investigation that included undercover officers purchasing marijuana from Ahmed's dispensary, he was arrested. Prior to his trial on various marijuana charges, the trial court granted the prosecution's motion to preclude Ahmed from presenting a medical marijuana defense based upon Livermore's ordinance. In granting the motion, the trial court relied on City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Walker
Case #: B251600
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/27/2015

In a possession of marijuana for sale case, the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of simple possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana. After being arrested with 23 grams of marijuana packaged in numerous small bags, and $249 in mostly small bills, Walker was charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). At trial, he argued the marijuana was for personal use. An officer testified that the manner of possession, along with the denominations of cash possessed, were consistent with street-level marijuana sales. The trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Orlosky
Case #: D064468
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/16/2015

Marijuana collective need not be formed with any particular formalities for the collective cultivation defense (Health & Saf. Code, section 11362.775) to apply. Marijuana collective need not be formed with any particular formalities for the collective cultivation defense (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.775) to apply. During a search of Orlosky's rural property, police found marijuana plants, dried marijuana, a digital scale, $2,791 in cash, a shotgun, and a rifle. Orlosky shared the trailer with Jones and both had medical marijuana prescriptions. During Orlosky's trial for possession of marijuana for sale and cultivation (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11358, 11359),…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mulcrevy
Case #: C075885
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/15/2015

Concentrated cannabis is "marijuana" for purposes of a Compassionate Use Act defense. During a probation search, officers found concentrated cannabis and marijuana buds in Mulcrevy's pocket. He was charged with unlawful possession of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)) and was alleged to have violated his probation by failing to obey all laws. At trial, Mulcrevy testified that he had a physician's prescription to use medical marijuana and therefore, under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), he was obeying all laws and had not violated his probation. The trial court disagreed, reasoning that concentrated cannabis did not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Anderson
Case #: F066737
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/09/2015

Trial court erred by failing to instruct that the marijuana collective cultivation defense (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.775) may apply when medical marijuana is provided to members who do not participate in the cultivation process in exchange for money. Detectives found 187 marijuana plants, marijuana cigarettes, concentrated cannabis, and 25 small bags of dried marijuana buds on Anderson's property. He was charged with cultivation (§ 11358), possession for sale (§ 11359), and possession of concentrated cannabis (§ 11357, subd. (a)). At trial, Anderson presented evidence that he was in the process of forming a medical marijuana collective when he…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Clark
Case #: B253036
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 10/09/2014

Police have no affirmative duty to investigate a suspect's status under the Compassionate Use Act prior to obtaining a search warrant. Acting on a tip from an informant and surveillance evidence, police officers obtained a warrant to search the garage of Clark's residence for evidence of a marijuana grow. Officers seized marijuana plants, cocaine, and a shotgun. Clark filed a motion suppress the evidence, arguing that his cultivation of marijuana was legal under the Act and that there were no facts presented in support of the search warrant that the cultivation was illegal. Following the denial of the motion, Clark…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Baniani
Case #: G048535
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/22/2014

Trial court prejudicially erred by precluding defendant who ran a nonprofit medical marijuana collective from presenting a defense under the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). Defendant operated a nonprofit medical marijuana collective. After police found his inventory of medical marijuana, he was charged with a sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). At defendant's first trial, he presented a defense under the MMPA and the jury hung on both counts. At his retrial, the trial court precluded defendant from presenting his MMPA defense and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. London
Case #: E057249
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/30/2014

Although the jury instructions misstated the defense under the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) related to medical marijuana collectives, defendant was not entitled to instructions on this defense. Police discovered 100 marijuana plants in a grow room in London's home. London, who was a qualified patient and had a medical marijuana card, told officers that he was lawfully cultivating the marijuana for a medical marijuana collective, the Green Galleon collective, and expected to be paid $20,000 once he returned the fully grown plants to the collective. London was found guilty of cultivating marijuana and possessing marijuana for sale (Health…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mitchell
Case #: B239380
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/29/2014

Marijuana grower who grew large quantities of marijuana for sale to a for-profit marijuana collective was not entitled to the protections of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). Mitchell formed a non-profit corporation to cultivate marijuana and projected being paid $50,000 to $60,000 annually for the marijuana. He then entered into two contracts to grow marijuana every month and sell it to a for-profit corporation, the K.I.M. Collective, that operated a medical marijuana collective of which he was personally a member. Police discovered his extensive marijuana growing facility and he was convicted of marijuana cultivation (Health & Saf. Code,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sandercock
Case #: B238858
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/17/2013

In a medical marijuana case, trial court erred when it approved a jury instruction that would allow the retail sale of marijuana. Defendants were charged with selling marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale. On separate occasions, the defendants delivered medical marijuana to an undercover detective in exchange for money. The defendants checked the detective's medical marijuana recommendation and had her sign forms stating that she was a member of the defendants' medical marijuana collective or that the defendants were her primary caregivers. Prior to trial, the court approved a defense instruction stating that providing money in exchange for marijuana…

View Full Summary