quadracer
Active member
SB420 stands, limits do not!
Opinion Released - Supreme Court of California on People v Kelly
Full opinion (56 pages) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S164830.PDF
California Supreme Court decision establishes state plant and
possession limits as a floor, not a ceiling:
"Whether or not a person entitled to register under the MMP elects to
do so, that individual, so long as he or she meets the definition of a
patient or primary caregiver under the CUA, retains all the rights
afforded by the CUA. Thus, such a person may assert, as a defense in
court, that he or she possessed or cultivated an amount of marijuana
reasonably related to meet his or her current medical needs (see
Trippet, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549), without reference to the
specific quanitative limitations specified by the MMP."
"We conclude as follows: To the extent section 11362.77 (together with
its quantitative limitations) impermissibly amends the CUA by
burdening a defense that would be available pursuant to that
initiative statute, section 11362.77 is invalid under California
Constitution article II, section 10, subdivision (c). Nevertheless, it
would be inappropriate to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and
hence void that provision in 54 its entirety. To the extent the
judgment of the Court of Appeal purports to sever section 11362.77
from the MMP and to void this statute in its entirety, the judgment is
reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
PEOPLE v. KELLY
Case: S164830, Supreme Court of California
Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2010-01-21
Event Description: Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full
Notes:
We conclude as follows: To the extent section 11362.77 (together with its quantitative limitations) impermissibly amends the CUA by burdening a defense that would be available to pursuant to that inititative statute, section 11362.77 is invalid under California Constitution article II, section 10, subdivision (c).
Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and hence void that provision in its entirety. To the extent the judgment of the Court of Appeal purports to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and to void this statute in its entirety, the judgment is reversed. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
OPINION BY: George, C.J.
-- joined by: Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.
For more information on this case, go to:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/disposition.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1896508
For opinions, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi?Courts=S
Opinion Released - Supreme Court of California on People v Kelly
Full opinion (56 pages) -
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S164830.PDF
California Supreme Court decision establishes state plant and
possession limits as a floor, not a ceiling:
"Whether or not a person entitled to register under the MMP elects to
do so, that individual, so long as he or she meets the definition of a
patient or primary caregiver under the CUA, retains all the rights
afforded by the CUA. Thus, such a person may assert, as a defense in
court, that he or she possessed or cultivated an amount of marijuana
reasonably related to meet his or her current medical needs (see
Trippet, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549), without reference to the
specific quanitative limitations specified by the MMP."
"We conclude as follows: To the extent section 11362.77 (together with
its quantitative limitations) impermissibly amends the CUA by
burdening a defense that would be available pursuant to that
initiative statute, section 11362.77 is invalid under California
Constitution article II, section 10, subdivision (c). Nevertheless, it
would be inappropriate to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and
hence void that provision in 54 its entirety. To the extent the
judgment of the Court of Appeal purports to sever section 11362.77
from the MMP and to void this statute in its entirety, the judgment is
reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
PEOPLE v. KELLY
Case: S164830, Supreme Court of California
Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2010-01-21
Event Description: Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full
Notes:
We conclude as follows: To the extent section 11362.77 (together with its quantitative limitations) impermissibly amends the CUA by burdening a defense that would be available to pursuant to that inititative statute, section 11362.77 is invalid under California Constitution article II, section 10, subdivision (c).
Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and hence void that provision in its entirety. To the extent the judgment of the Court of Appeal purports to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and to void this statute in its entirety, the judgment is reversed. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
OPINION BY: George, C.J.
-- joined by: Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.
For more information on this case, go to:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/disposition.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1896508
For opinions, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi?Courts=S