defendant to raise defense in California

2016Code, § 11362.5, subd. (d).) “By this and related provisions, the CUA provides an affirmative defense to prosecution for the crimes of possession and cultivation.” (People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1013 .) “Because the statute provides a limited affirmative defense, the burden is, of course, on the defendant to raise the defense and prove its elements.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1551, fn. 17 .) However, the defendant need only “raise a reasonable doubt as to those facts rather than to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th

2006Cal.Rptr.2d 559.) Here, the preliminary question is whether there was substantial evidence that defendant is "a qualified patient" as that term is defined in section 11362.7, subdivision (f) as "a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article." Only upon such an evidentiary showing would defendant be entitled to a CUA defense instruction. ( People v. Trippet, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1551 , 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 559, fn. 17 ["Because the statute provides a limited affirmative defense, the burden is, of cou

2024(Id., subd. (c)(1)–(3).) The Lashon court opined it would not make sense “for the Legislature to prescribe a comprehensive procedure for making and adjudicating a section 745 motion at the trial level (including a specific waiver provision for untimely motions), only to allow defendants who could have but did not use that procedure (thereby preserving their claim for review) to bypass that procedure and pursue a section 745 claim for the first time on direct appeal.” (Lashon, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at p. 813; accord People v. Singh (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 76 , 115 (Singh) [“To permit a defendant

2024(Id., subd. (c)(1)–(3).) The Lashon court opined it would not make sense “for the Legislature to prescribe a comprehensive procedure for making and adjudicating a section 745 motion at the trial level (including a specific waiver provision for untimely motions), only to allow defendants who could have but did not use that procedure (thereby preserving their claim for review) to bypass that procedure and pursue a section 745 claim for the first time on direct appeal.” (Lashon, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at p. 813; accord People v. Singh (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 76 , 115 (Singh) [“To permit a defendant

2016Code, § 11362.5, subd. (d).) “By this and related provisions, the CUA provides an affirmative defense to prosecution for the crimes of possession and cultivation.” (People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1013 .) “Because the statute provides a limited affirmative defense, the burden is, of course, on the defendant to raise the defense and prove its elements.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1551, fn. 17 .) However, the defendant need only “raise a reasonable doubt as to those facts rather than to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th

2006Cal.Rptr.2d 559.) Here, the preliminary question is whether there was substantial evidence that defendant is "a qualified patient" as that term is defined in section 11362.7, subdivision (f) as "a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article." Only upon such an evidentiary showing would defendant be entitled to a CUA defense instruction. ( People v. Trippet, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1551 , 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 559, fn. 17 ["Because the statute provides a limited affirmative defense, the burden is, of cou

1997(See People v. Cardenas (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 240, 244-246 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 583 ], and cases cited therein.)

1997(See People v. Cardenas (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 240, 244-246 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 583 ], and cases cited therein.)

1989In Steward v. Paige (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 820, 825 [ 203 P.2d 858 ], the appellate court simply declined to permit a defendant to raise the defense of res judicata for the first time on appeal where such defense had not been pleaded and *1088 supporting documentation had not been introduced into evidence at trial.

1989In Steward v. Paige (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 820, 825 [ 203 P.2d 858 ], the appellate court simply declined to permit a defendant to raise the defense of res judicata for the first time on appeal where such defense had not been pleaded and *1088 supporting documentation had not been introduced into evidence at trial.