People v. Wright
In September 2001, Huntington Beach police officers responded to a call about a person at a carwash whose backpack “reeked of marijuana.” When confronted by the officers, the owner of the backpack denied that he possessed any marijuana. After investigation, the officers discovered that the person was lying. He possessed marijuana in a small baggie on his person, and in his backpack were six other small baggies of marijuana and two large bags of marijuana. There was also an electronic scale in the backpack.
The officers arrested the person for possession of marijuana with the intent to sell and transporting marijuana. After a hearing, the trial court allowed the defendant to present a defense of medical marijuana for the charge of possession; however, for the charges of sales and transportation the court refused to allow the jury to consider a medical marijuana defense. The jury convicted the defendant, concluding that the defendant did not possess the marijuana for personal use but for sales and transportation.
The Supreme Court of California ruled that the trial court should have allowed a medical marijuana defense for the charge of transportation on the grounds that the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB420) explicitly decriminalizes medical marijuana transportation. Importantly, however, the Court left open the possibility that the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) itself contains an implied defense to a charge of marijuana transportation.
This is significant. It means that Proposition 215 does not only provide an affirmative defense in court to charges of possession or cultivation. The Court expressly stated: “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the CUA) ensures that Californians who obtain and use marijuana for specified medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to certain criminal sanctions.”
These “certain criminal sanctions” that shall not apply to qualified persons under Proposition 215 exist independent of SB420. We already know that under Proposition 215 the police need probable cause to subject a qualified person to marijuana possession or cultivation charges, and it now appears that 6-1 the Court believes an implied defense to a charge of marijuana transportation may also exist under Proposition 215. If there is an implied defense to transportation under Proposition 215, there may also be other implied defenses.
The lesson of People v. Wright is that the voters of California decriminalized medical marijuana in 1996. Qualified persons may possess, cultivate, transport, and (maybe) even do other things under California law. What they may not do, apparently, is store their medicine so as to give the impression that their cannabis is being diverted for non-medical purposes. Patients should not transport their medicine in unmarked small and big bags next to an electronic scale, and they should not lie to the police. The truth is always the best defense.
Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.
The officers arrested the person for possession of marijuana with the intent to sell and transporting marijuana. After a hearing, the trial court allowed the defendant to present a defense of medical marijuana for the charge of possession; however, for the charges of sales and transportation the court refused to allow the jury to consider a medical marijuana defense. The jury convicted the defendant, concluding that the defendant did not possess the marijuana for personal use but for sales and transportation.
The Supreme Court of California ruled that the trial court should have allowed a medical marijuana defense for the charge of transportation on the grounds that the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB420) explicitly decriminalizes medical marijuana transportation. Importantly, however, the Court left open the possibility that the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) itself contains an implied defense to a charge of marijuana transportation.
This is significant. It means that Proposition 215 does not only provide an affirmative defense in court to charges of possession or cultivation. The Court expressly stated: “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the CUA) ensures that Californians who obtain and use marijuana for specified medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to certain criminal sanctions.”
These “certain criminal sanctions” that shall not apply to qualified persons under Proposition 215 exist independent of SB420. We already know that under Proposition 215 the police need probable cause to subject a qualified person to marijuana possession or cultivation charges, and it now appears that 6-1 the Court believes an implied defense to a charge of marijuana transportation may also exist under Proposition 215. If there is an implied defense to transportation under Proposition 215, there may also be other implied defenses.
The lesson of People v. Wright is that the voters of California decriminalized medical marijuana in 1996. Qualified persons may possess, cultivate, transport, and (maybe) even do other things under California law. What they may not do, apparently, is store their medicine so as to give the impression that their cannabis is being diverted for non-medical purposes. Patients should not transport their medicine in unmarked small and big bags next to an electronic scale, and they should not lie to the police. The truth is always the best defense.
Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.
posted by Kenneth Michael White | 8:41 PM
|
0 comments
