California Appeals Court: MMJ Possession Limits Thrown Out!

[Skip]

A California Appeals court ruled that it was improper to place a limit on how much medical marijuana a patient or caregiver could possess. It said SB420 which placed an arbitrary limit on the amount of marijuana someone could possess as being in conflict with Proposition 215 which California voters passed in 1996. And since the legislature is prohibited from modifying initiatives passed by the people, that law is invalid and cannot be applied in marijuana prosecution cases.

The court says it's up to the jury to decide if the amount of marijuana in the person's possession meets or exceeds their needs. I thought that was up to the patient's doctor to decide, not a jury...

The California Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on this matter soon as they are considering declaring the possession limits defined in SB420 as being unconstitutional.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/30/ruling-pot-allowance-should-be-jurys-call/

 

[Amithia420]

I take this as progress but still find we are on the wrong path to correct the history of mj

 

[Skip]

Not sure what you mean by wrong path. You mean medical mj?

 

[Mrgrowem]

That is a rather strange ruling, it may not even be correct. Why would a jury be allowed to determine the amount of plants recommended by a doctor ? This could get very sticky in the future.

 

[Skip]

The only reason a jury even needs to consider how much marijuana a patient needs, is because they make the assumption that marijuana is a BAD THING.

Once we get over that idea, it really won't matter how much marijuana is involved. It will be like a jury saying someone is guilty cause the bottle of aspirin they have is too big, they don't need all that aspirin, right?

They could KILL themselves with too much aspirin (but not pot, right?)

Oh, and God Forbid they were to SHARE their aspirin with anyone else!!!

Until we start equating medical marijuana with aspirin (even tho mj is far safer), there will be this injustice, nay prejudice against anyone possessing marijuana (for whatever reason).

What's really COOL about all this is the fact that these kinds of rulings are pointing out the ingrained hypocrisy in our legal system regarding marijuana. Marijuana is considered "BAD" simply because it's illegal in some contexts. This is what needs to be changed - the legal attitude towards cannabis.

Don't want Prosecutors, Judges and Juries telling you how much marijuana you can possess? Then LEGALIZE IT!

 

[johnnyla]

That is a rather strange ruling, it may not even be correct. Why would a jury be allowed to determine the amount of plants recommended by a doctor ? This could get very sticky in the future.

it's not strange at all. it's the law.

the law in CA states that an citizen with a Dr's Recomendation for Cannabis
can posses any amount consistent with their needs.

the only person who can decide what is consistent with a pateints needs is the patient and doctor.

the ones who judge wether the patient was following law is the jury. the jury is then responsible for deciding wether the patient was within their limits.

good luck getting convictions as patients only have to give the jury reasonable doubt as to the charges wheras collectives have the preponderance of evidance.

this is great news for patients.

 

[headfortrinity]

Great news!

I forsee a sea of green in every closet!

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I feel like the jury could make the decision if and only if they had a dr's word on what the "correct" amount should be for a given patient. That being said, essentially a Dr's note/prescription should state the amount of raw product needed and there should be a conversion chart for plants seedlings, clones, etc...

It's a shame that MJ had to fight against the lies and come to the people solely through the medicinal realm, but at least its finally coming to the people...

 

[meduser180056]

Excellent now that we have that bullshit illegal amendment out of the way we don't have to fear not even having a medical defense cuz a judge says your over limits.

 

[Skip]

People who need more than allowed by the law often ask their doctor to write the amount they are allowed on their recommendation so they have that to show in court should it be necessary. At least in California they do.

 

[freeride high]

interesting. this could be good or bad depending. will a jury deem 2oz too much or 2lbs? is it now up to you if you have an over the top garden? then to only be tried in court later?
we should be filling in the gray areas not making them wider.

 

[fatigues]

The Court of Appeal is undoubtedly correct and you're confusing the issue of who presents evidence at trial with who evaluates that evidence and decides to accept or reject it.

First - let's ignore the news article and go to the Reasons for Decision, They can be found here. The relevant passage is at page 17.

The initial instruction to the jury on the question of the possession charge told the jury they were to assess whether there was a Prop 215 defence to Archer's possession of approximately 1.7 lbs of marijuana. The jury was told they had to assess whether or not the defence was available to Archer by reference to the 8 oz limit under SB420. That was clearly an error in law.

In all criminal cases, the People must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal held, quite properly, that it was up to the jury to decide if the marijuana held by Archer was reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs. If it was, then The People will not be able to prove their case. It is up to the People to persuade the jury that the state has satisfied its legal burden. As a practical matter, the defendant will have an evidentiary burden to substantiate his defence under the CUA.

So that's the legal standard and practical evidentiary burden.

As to whether or not "the jury sets the needs of the patient", you're getting confused. Juries find facts after evaluating evidence. That is their role in the court process. Presumably, a key element of the evidence relating to "the patient's current medical needs" will be the physician's recommendation as to amount. That evidence will emerge at trial.

In practical terms, the physician makes the recommendation. As to whether the amount of marijuana found in the possession of the patient reasonably relates to the patient's current medical needs, the jury will assess that after taking into account (1) the amount of marijuana found, (2) the doctor's recommendation and (3) any other fact relevant to the patient's current medical needs, as instructed by the Court.

In short: the jury finds the facts after evaluating the evidence. The jury doesn't get to make the evidence up, but they do decide as triers of fact what evidence they accept, and what evidence they reject. That's quite properly the role of the trier of fact and always has been under the common law.

The Court of Appeal Held @ p.17:

"Under section 11362.5, subdivision (d), the only qualification concerning the amount of marijuana that a medical marijuana patient could possess (or cultivate) was that the marijuana be for the "personal medical purposes" of the patient. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d).) As noted, courts have interpreted this qualification to mean a reasonable amount: "[T]he quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form
and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs. What precisely are the 'patient's current medical needs' [is], of course . . . a factual question to be determined by the trier of fact."

The Court of Appeal's ruling in People v. Archer is, accordingly, a plainly correct and trite statement of law with respect to the role of the jury and, imo, is unassailable.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Archer testified that he was growing marijuana for four others in addition to himself, at least two of whom were also medical-marijuana users. He refused to identify the other two when he testified at the trial, the decision says.

Now that is what I am talking about, not sntiching on your people. Good on him!

But yeah this really is only a bandaid solution until the California Supreme Court publishes people v kelly.

 

[Mrgrowem]

fatigues,

It's ok.....I see what you're saying. This then would be a decision "after the evidence has been given to the jury" for the jury to decide whether or not the defendent is guilty as charged, according to the law. I can see where I misread this. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

so you can still be arrested and have to go to trial. thats is still not right.

 

[anikas88]

what does this mean for me?

 

[kmk420kali]

This means a lot, especially for us outdoor growers....we get 1 shot a year, and 6 plants just ain't gonna cut it for a full year--
Of course I had 40 at home...but I was scared!! lol!!

 

[nephilthim]

so you can still be arrested and have to go to trial. thats is still not right.

you can always be arrested as far as going to a trial thats your decision if the district attorney either declines or accepts the burden of prosecuting you before a judge or jury.

 

[JackTheGrower]

That is a rather strange ruling, it may not even be correct. Why would a jury be allowed to determine the amount of plants recommended by a doctor ? This could get very sticky in the future.

Prop 215 only gives a defense in court so it would be court that decides.

All Medical people can be arrested first and must present a medical defense in court.

So if I have 2lbs on hand then I may be able to explain why I have it rather than go to jail because it was more that 8 OZ..

I know.. Having some stated minimums is a blessing for some and a nightmare for others.

What I am wondering now is will the more conservative police departments now able to say they felt 4 ounces was too much and arrest some they don't like?

 

[kmk420kali]

Prop 215 only gives a defense in court so it would be court that decides.

All Medical people can be arrested first and must present a medical defense in court.

So if I have 2lbs on hand then I may be able to explain why I have it rather than go to jail because it was more that 8 OZ..

I know.. Having some stated minimums is a blessing for some and a nightmare for others.

What I am wondering now is will the more conservative police departments now able to say they felt 4 ounces was too much and arrest some they don't like?

That will be interesting-- It will take a few Harassment Suits on the basis that the "System" has already determined, via SB420, that a half pound is the minimum that a Patient needs--