collective cultivation defense in California

2021It appears he was attempting to establish he was a “qualified patient” within the meaning of the MMPA. “ ‘A qualified patient is someone for whom a physician has previously recommended or approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes.’ ” (People v. Jackson, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 530 , italics in original.) While the trial court ruled this evidence was not relevant—even though it pertains to an element of the collective cultivation defense—it also ruled this evidence was not supported by a proper foundation.

2021They must present enough evidence to simply “raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the elements of the defenses have been proven,” and “‘the trial court must leave issues of witness credibility to the jury.’” (Jackson, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 533 .) “The standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidentiary foundation is whether a reasonable jury, accepting all the evidence as 8 true, could find the defendant’s actions justified by” the collective cultivation defense.

2021For the collective cultivation defense to apply, the defendant has the burden of raising “a reasonable doubt about the existence of the defense.” (People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 269 .) Although the quantum of evidence required to invoke the defense is “minimal,” a defendant must proffer at least some admissible evidence.

2015(People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 271-272 ; People v. Anderson, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1280- 11 1282; People v. London (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 544, 566 ; People v. Solis (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 51, 57-58 .) The trial court had no duty to instruct sua sponte on the collective cultivation defense.

2021Jackson and People v. Colvin (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1029 are inapplicable because the error in those cases was a legal one—the trial courts in those cases applied an incorrect definition of the collective cultivation defense. ( Jackson, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 529-530 [trial court mistakenly believed the defense applied only if every collective member actively participates in the cultivation process]; Colvin, at p. 1037 [trial court incorrectly concluded the defense applied only to the act of cultivation and not to the necessary and related acts of transportation and distribution].) The

2015Although People v. Colvin, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th 1029 , the case she cites in arguing that she met the required elements, does not mention a nonprofit requirement, we fail to see how anything in that decision is inconsistent with such a requirement, particularly given that the entity at issue in that case was, indeed, “a nonprofit corporation.” (Id. at pp. 1037-1038.) 15 section 11362.775 to make such formality “a mandatory requirement that automatically excludes all informal collective cultivation arrangements from the purview of the collective cultivation defense.” (Orlosky, at p. 271, ital

2021In short, the collective cultivation defense protects medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives that operate in a closed loop, where grower members cultivate marijuana 7 to sell to consumer members, “so long as all members are patients or primary caregivers, all the buying and selling is done on a nonprofit basis within the collective or cooperative, there are no transactions with nonmembers, and the amount cultivated is reasonably necessary for the membership’s medical needs.” (People v. Anderson (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1277-1278 .) As the Attorney General’s “Guidelines for the Secu

2015(People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 271-272 ; People v. Anderson, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1280- 11 1282; People v. London (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 544, 566 ; People v. Solis (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 51, 57-58 .) The trial court had no duty to instruct sua sponte on the collective cultivation defense.

2016(People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 ) “ ‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ ” ’ ” it is not any evidence “ ‘ “ ‘no matter how weak.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 .) II Substantial Evidence Did Not Support The Collective Cultivation Defense Here, there was no error in not instructing on the collective cultivation defense.

2016(People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 ) “ ‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ ” ’ ” it is not any evidence “ ‘ “ ‘no matter how weak.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 .) II Substantial Evidence Did Not Support The Collective Cultivation Defense Here, there was no error in not instructing on the collective cultivation defense.

2016(People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 ) “ ‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ ” ’ ” it is not any evidence “ ‘ “ ‘no matter how weak.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 .) II Substantial Evidence Did Not Support The Collective Cultivation Defense Here, there was no error in not instructing on the collective cultivation defense.

2016(People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 ) “ ‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ ” ’ ” it is not any evidence “ ‘ “ ‘no matter how weak.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 .) II Substantial Evidence Did Not Support The Collective Cultivation Defense Here, there was no error in not instructing on the collective cultivation defense.

2015(People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 271-272 ; People v. Anderson, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1280- 11 1282; People v. London (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 544, 566 ; People v. Solis (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 51, 57-58 .) The trial court had no duty to instruct sua sponte on the collective cultivation defense.

2015The Attorney General counters that “the trial court’s reliance on [the lack of] evidence of business and financial records to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for . . . [the] defense to go to the jury” was proper, citing People v. Solis (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 51 and People v. Colvin, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th 1029 .

2021And finally, People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747 is distinguishable because there the defendant had presented precisely the kind of details about the collective’s cultivation policies and operations that DeRouen failed to produce.

2021(Ahmed, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 143 .) The appellate court explained, “[w]hile a local government remains free to enact local ordinances to regulate (or prohibit) medical marijuana operations within its jurisdiction [citations], nothing in law or logic supports an extension of local government power over land use within its borders to, in effect, nullify a statutory defense to violations of state law.” (Ibid.) In Ahmed, the record contained ample evidence supporting the conclusion that the collective cultivation defense applied.

2015(See People v. Galambos, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1162 .) In doing so, “we need not adopt the trial court’s reasons [for its ruling] because ‘ “ ‘a ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason.

2015(People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 271-272 ; People v. Anderson, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1280- 11 1282; People v. London (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 544, 566 ; People v. Solis (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 51, 57-58 .) The trial court had no duty to instruct sua sponte on the collective cultivation defense.