11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mowergreen2 sentences2016(Dowl, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 464, 481 .) He or she need not establish the severity of his or her illness; as this court has held, “the voters of California did not intend to limit the compassionate use defense to those patients deemed by a jury to be ‘seriously ill.’ ” (People v. Spark (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 259, 268 .) 12. 2013The Supreme Court explained that under the rule of convenience and necessity, “unless it is ‘unduly harsh or unfair,’ the ‘burden of proving an exonerating fact may be imposed on a defendant if its existence is “peculiarly” within his personal knowledge and proof of its nonexistence by the prosecution would be relatively difficult or inconvenient.’ ” (Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 477 .) “The rule often has been invoked when the ‘exonerating fact’ arises from an exception to a criminal statute.” (Ibid.) In Mower , the Supreme Court concluded it would not be unduly harsh or unfair to allocate | 3 | 6 |
People v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2015(People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1017, 1024, 1049.) And there is authority for the proposition that the CUA provides an implied defense to transportation of marijuana under section 11360 even though the CUA only explicitly refers to the crimes of possession and cultivation. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d); People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1550-1551 ; see People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 90-92 ; but cf. People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229, 236-237 [no implied defense to transportation under CUA].) While it is true, as the Attorney General points out, that after Kelly a 2009(See § 11362.5, subd. (d); see also People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81 , 99 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 , 146 P.3d 531 ] [jury determination that marijuana was possessed for sale rather than personal use rendered failure to give instruction on CUA defense harmless with regard to charge of transportation of marijuana].) 4 At oral argument before this court, Archer conceded that under People v. Mentch, supra , 45 Cal.4th at page 283 , he did not qualify as a primary caregiver within the meaning of section 11362.5, subdivision (e). 5 See also CALCRIM No. 2370, which includes the compassionate use defe | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences2016Moreover, “[t]he CUA does not specify an amount of marijuana that a patient may possess or cultivate, but simply imposes the requirement that the marijuana must be for the patient’s ‘personal medical purposes.’ [Citations.] This medical purposes requirement has been judicially construed to mean ‘ “the quantity possessed by the patient . . . , and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 267 (Orlosky); see People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1013 (Kelly).) 2015(People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1017, 1024, 1049.) And there is authority for the proposition that the CUA provides an implied defense to transportation of marijuana under section 11360 even though the CUA only explicitly refers to the crimes of possession and cultivation. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d); People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1550-1551 ; see People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 90-92 ; but cf. People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229, 236-237 [no implied defense to transportation under CUA].) While it is true, as the Attorney General points out, that after Kelly a | 1 | 2 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2015The CUA permits assertion of the compassionate use defense upon a doctor’s written or oral recommendation, and Jones’s testimony that he had this recommendation was sufficient to warrant submitting the issue of his qualified patient status to the jury for its determination. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d); see People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341, 350-351 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ] [based on defendant’s testimony that he had doctor’s oral approval to use marijuana, trial court was required to allow presentation of compassionate use defense to jury].) Finally, there was testimony from Jones, defendant, 2015The CUA permits assertion of the compassionate use defense upon a doctor’s written or oral recommendation, and Jones’s testimony that he had this recommendation was sufficient to warrant submitting the issue of his qualified patient status to the jury for its determination. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d); see People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341, 350-351 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ] [based on defendant’s testimony that he had doctor’s oral approval to use marijuana, trial court was required to allow presentation of compassionate use defense to jury].) Finally, there was testimony from Jones, defendant, | 1 | 2 |
People v. Mentchgreen2 sentences2015First, she argues that the reference to an “objective person” established a higher standard for acquittal than creation of “a reasonable doubt.” Second, she claims that no instruction on her burden to produce evidence should have been given at all, relying on Justice Chin’s concurring opinion in People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274 , which suggested that because “the defendant’s burden [as to a compassionate-use defense] is only to produce evidence under Evidence Code 110[,] . . . once the trial court finds the defendant has presented sufficient evidence to warrant an instruction on the defe 2009(See § 11362.5, subd. (d); see also People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81 , 99 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 , 146 P.3d 531 ] [jury determination that marijuana was possessed for sale rather than personal use rendered failure to give instruction on CUA defense harmless with regard to charge of transportation of marijuana].) 4 At oral argument before this court, Archer conceded that under People v. Mentch, supra , 45 Cal.4th at page 283 , he did not qualify as a primary caregiver within the meaning of section 11362.5, subdivision (e). 5 See also CALCRIM No. 2370, which includes the compassionate use defe | 1 | 2 |
People v. Orloskygreen1 sentence2016Moreover, “[t]he CUA does not specify an amount of marijuana that a patient may possess or cultivate, but simply imposes the requirement that the marijuana must be for the patient’s ‘personal medical purposes.’ [Citations.] This medical purposes requirement has been judicially construed to mean ‘ “the quantity possessed by the patient . . . , and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 267 (Orlosky); see People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1013 (Kelly).) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fuentesgreen2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court has afforded the states wide latitude in designating affirmative defenses.” {People v. Fuentes (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1044 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 17 ].) There is no constitutional imperative that “ ‘a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.’ [Citation.]” {Id. at p. 1045.) The compassionate use defense is one such defense. 2005The United States Supreme Court has afforded the states wide latitude in designating affirmative defenses.” {People v. Fuentes (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1044 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 17 ].) There is no constitutional imperative that “ ‘a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.’ [Citation.]” {Id. at p. 1045.) The compassionate use defense is one such defense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Logginsgreen1 sentence2005(Kelley, supra, at pp. 1011-1012.) In Loggins , the trial court instructed the jury in the language of former CALJIC No. 5.15, that “to establish the defense of justifiable homicide, the *819 ‘burden is on the defendant to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt of the charge of murder.’ ” (Loggins, supra, 23 Cal.App.3d at p. 599.) The court’s conclusion that the instruction should not be given was based on reasons unique to the crime of murder, and thus do not inform our analysis of the compassionate use defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Younggreen2 sentences2015(People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1017, 1024, 1049.) And there is authority for the proposition that the CUA provides an implied defense to transportation of marijuana under section 11360 even though the CUA only explicitly refers to the crimes of possession and cultivation. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d); People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1550-1551 ; see People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 90-92 ; but cf. People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229, 236-237 [no implied defense to transportation under CUA].) While it is true, as the Attorney General points out, that after Kelly a 2004(See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ]; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; People v. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ]; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 748 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 ]; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ]; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ]; People ex rel. | 1 | 2 |
Roscoe Littlefield v. County of Humboldtgreen1 sentence2015(People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1017, 1024, 1049.) And there is authority for the proposition that the CUA provides an implied defense to transportation of marijuana under section 11360 even though the CUA only explicitly refers to the crimes of possession and cultivation. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d); People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1550-1551 ; see People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 90-92 ; but cf. People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229, 236-237 [no implied defense to transportation under CUA].) While it is true, as the Attorney General points out, that after Kelly a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Trippet
green
2 sentences2015(People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 1017, 1024, 1049.) And there is authority for the proposition that the CUA provides an implied defense to transportation of marijuana under section 11360 even though the CUA only explicitly refers to the crimes of possession and cultivation. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d); People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1550-1551 ; see People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 90-92 ; but cf. People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229, 236-237 [no implied defense to transportation under CUA].) While it is true, as the Attorney General points out, that after Kelly a 2005(Ibid.) *824 III The Court Properly Instructed the Jury to Consider Whether the Marijuana Was Reasonably Related to the Patient’s or Defendant’s Then Medical Needs Defendant argues that Mower implicitly overruled the holding in People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 559 ] (Trippet) that the jury must determine whether the amount of marijuana possessed by a defendant is “reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs” when assessing the compassionate use defense. | 4 | 1999–2015 |
People v. Spark
green
2 sentences2016(Dowl, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 464, 481 .) He or she need not establish the severity of his or her illness; as this court has held, “the voters of California did not intend to limit the compassionate use defense to those patients deemed by a jury to be ‘seriously ill.’ ” (People v. Spark (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 259, 268 .) 12. 2016If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.”5 In People v. Spark (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 259 (Spark), the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that one of the elements of the Compassionate Use Act defense was that the defendant had to be ‘“seriously ill.”’ (Spark, at pp. 262, 268-269.) The appellate court concluded that the voters “did not intend to limit the compassionate use defense to those patients deemed by a jury to be ‘seriously ill.’” (Id. at p. 268.) As a result, “the question of whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriat | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People Ex Rel. Lungren v. Peron
green
2 sentences2006The defendant denied the truth of his hospital statement, claiming that he made the statement under the influence of various medications with which he was being treated. ( Id. at p. 466, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067 .) *105 After the presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the crimes of possession and cultivation of marijuana and gave an instruction based on the compassionate use defense based on the defendant's claim that he was a qualified patient, but without any reference to a qualified primary caregiver. ( Ibid. ) On appeal, Mower argued that section 113 2006The defendant denied the truth of his hospital statement, claiming that he made the statement under the influence of various medications with which he was being treated. ( Id. at p. 466, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067 .) *105 After the presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the crimes of possession and cultivation of marijuana and gave an instruction based on the compassionate use defense based on the defendant's claim that he was a qualified patient, but without any reference to a qualified primary caregiver. ( Ibid. ) On appeal, Mower argued that section 113 | 2 | 2004–2006 |
People v. Galambos
green
2 sentences2006Specifically, that the court below failed to instruct the jury sua sponte regarding appellant's "right to receive compensation for actual expenses." At the outset, we point out that the compassionate use defense provided by section 11362.5 is not available to a charge of possession for sale under section 11359. ( People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal. App.4th 1147, 1165-1167 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ; Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 .) However, under section 11362.765, subdivision (c), "[a] primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonab 2006Specifically, that the court below failed to instruct the jury sua sponte regarding appellant's "right to receive compensation for actual expenses." At the outset, we point out that the compassionate use defense provided by section 11362.5 is not available to a charge of possession for sale under section 11359. ( People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal. App.4th 1147, 1165-1167 , 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ; Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 .) However, under section 11362.765, subdivision (c), "[a] primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonab | 2 | 2004–2006 |
The People v. Dowl
green
1 sentence2016(Dowl, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 464, 481 .) He or she need not establish the severity of his or her illness; as this court has held, “the voters of California did not intend to limit the compassionate use defense to those patients deemed by a jury to be ‘seriously ill.’ ” (People v. Spark (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 259, 268 .) 12. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Urziceanu
green
2 sentences2006The defendant denied the truth of his hospital statement, claiming that he made the statement under the influence of various medications with which he was being treated. ( Id. at p. 466, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067 .) *105 After the presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the crimes of possession and cultivation of marijuana and gave an instruction based on the compassionate use defense based on the defendant's claim that he was a qualified patient, but without any reference to a qualified primary caregiver. ( Ibid. ) On appeal, Mower argued that section 113 2006The defendant denied the truth of his hospital statement, claiming that he made the statement under the influence of various medications with which he was being treated. ( Id. at p. 466, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 , 49 P.3d 1067 .) *105 After the presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the crimes of possession and cultivation of marijuana and gave an instruction based on the compassionate use defense based on the defendant's claim that he was a qualified patient, but without any reference to a qualified primary caregiver. ( Ibid. ) On appeal, Mower argued that section 113 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Frazier
green
2 sentences2006However, "[t]o the extent that the Medical Marijuana Program [Act] sets forth new affirmative defenses, expands the defense identified by the Compassionate Use Act, and contains no savings *109 clause, that law must be retroactively applied." ( People v. Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807, 826 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 336 .) Respondent concedes as much. 2006However, "[t]o the extent that the Medical Marijuana Program [Act] sets forth new affirmative defenses, expands the defense identified by the Compassionate Use Act, and contains no savings *109 clause, that law must be retroactively applied." ( People v. Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807, 826 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 336 .) Respondent concedes as much. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Fisher
green
2 sentences2004(See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ]; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; People v. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ]; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 748 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 ]; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ]; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ]; People ex rel. 2004(See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ]; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; People v. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ]; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 748 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 ]; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ]; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ]; People ex rel. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Tilehkooh
green
2 sentences2004Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1383 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 ]; and People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 559 ].) The one California Supreme Court decision addressing the Compassionate Use Act, People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th 457 , referred to the defense of compassionate use as “the section 11362.5(d) defense” and “the defense provided by section *269 11362.5(d).” (Mower, supra, at pp. 464, 476 .) One case, People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 226 ], held that a trial court erred in refusing to allow a defendant to present a compassiona 2004Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1383 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 ]; and People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 559 ].) The one California Supreme Court decision addressing the Compassionate Use Act, People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th 457 , referred to the defense of compassionate use as “the section 11362.5(d) defense” and “the defense provided by section *269 11362.5(d).” (Mower, supra, at pp. 464, 476 .) One case, People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 226 ], held that a trial court erred in refusing to allow a defendant to present a compassiona | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Bianco
green
2 sentences2004(See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ]; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; People v. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ]; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 748 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 ]; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ]; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ]; People ex rel. 2004(See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ]; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; People v. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ]; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 748 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 ]; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ]; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ]; People ex rel. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Rigo
green
2 sentences2004(See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ]; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; People v. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ]; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 748 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 ]; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ]; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ]; People ex rel. 2004(See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ]; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; People v. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 838 ]; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 748 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 ]; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 229 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ]; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ]; People ex rel. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.