As my right honorable colleague Matt Kumin reminded me, Criminal Law must be considered when advising a marijuna-preneur(sm). It is with that thought that I leave today’s comment. In a recent Criminal case, the Court asked the jury three key questions on which the prosecution hinged:
(1) “Possession of marijuana with the intent to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes is authorized under the Compassionate Use Act so long as the marijuana is not cultivated for profit.”
(2) “Possession of marijuana is lawful if authorized by the Compassionate Use Act. The Compassionate Use Act allows a person to possess marijuana for personal medical purposes when a physician has recommended or approved such use. The amount of marijuana possessed must be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not authorized to possess marijuana for medical purposes. If the People have not met this burden, you must find a defendant not guilty of this crime.”
(3) “Possession of concentrated cannabis is lawful if authorized by the Compassionate Use Act. In order for the Compassionate Use Act to apply, a defendant must produce evidence tending to show that his possession or cultivation of concentrated cannabis was for personal medical purposes with a physician’s recommendation or approval. The amount of concentrated cannabis possessed must be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant’s possession or cultivation of concentrated cannabis was unlawful under the Compassionate Use Act, you must find the defendant not guilty.”
The Jury convicted in People v. RAYGOSA, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 2014.
Afterall, they had four pounds in their car, cash, four cell phones and a scale.
“Here, the People presented substantial evidence from which the jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant intended to sell the large quantity of marijuana he possessed. Jackson testified that in his experience, people package marijuana like defendant did when they plan to sell it to a dispensary. He further testified that most people consume only one-half gram to one gram of marijuana per dose and that it would be unreasonable for one person to carry around so much marijuana for his personal use. Jackson opined that the knotted bags would not keep the marijuana fresh for very long, and that other evidence recovered during the arrest — the scales and cash — further indicated that defendant (and Hernandez) planned to sell the marijuana. A jury could conclude from this evidence that defendant possessed more cannabis than was reasonably necessary for his personal medical use and intended to sell it.”