P. v. Malley
Defendants Gerald Malley (Gerald), Dawn Malley (Dawn), and Jeremy Youngren (Youngren) were tried together for cultivating marijuana and possessing marijuana for sale. Each offered a medical marijuana defense based on the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. (Health & Saf. Code,[1] 11362.5.) The Compassionate Use Act relieves a defendant of criminal liability for possession or cultivation of marijuana if the patient or primary caregiver possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. (Id., subd. (d).) Defendants appeal, raising numerous contentions, many of which relate to the numerical limitations found in the Medical Marijuana Program Act on which the court instructed as to all counts. The People concede the court erred in instructing on the numerical limits found in the Medical Marijuana Program Act but argue the error was harmless. Finding the error prejudicial, Court reverse the convictions. Court do not address defendants other contentions, except for rejecting Dawns contention that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions.
Comments on P. v. Malley