cannabisnews.com: State's Top Court Rules on Medical Pot Law





State's Top Court Rules on Medical Pot Law
Posted by CN Staff on July 19, 2002 at 07:12:57 PT
By Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Source: Oakland Tribune
California's medical marijuana law doesn't shield patients and caregivers from arrest but does let them move to have criminal charges dismissed before trial, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in its first swing at the topic since voters OK'd cannabis as medicine in 1996. And although a patient or caregiver bears the burden of proof to show he or she uses or grows marijuana only medicinally, that person need meet a much lower standard of proof than some courts have required, the court ruled. 
But while medical marijuana advocates had hoped the court also would use this case to bring order to a jumble of local policies on how many plants a patient can keep, the court deemed that irrelevant to this case. Santa Clara University School of Law professor Gerald Uelmen, who argued this case for Tuolumne County patient Myron Mower, called the ruling a victory for all California medical marijuana patients and caregivers who won't have to spend as much time and money extricating themselves from the legal system. "Giving the defendant the opportunity to litigate this pretrial will mean a lot of people will be able to avoid trial altogether, and that really was the intent of the initiative," said Uelmen, who also has helped represent the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative in its federal legal battles. By significantly reducing defendants' burden at trial, it should make local police and prosecutors think much harder about pursuing cases in the first place, he added. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling "provides much-needed guidance in interpreting an initiative that did not clearly specify how the law should apply." He also said that although the ruling changes the standard jury instruction used in similar cases across the state, it's unclear what impact it will have on earlier medical marijuana convictions. Until the passage of new laws such as one proposed by state Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-San Jose, which would create a statewide registry system for medical marijuana patients and caregivers, "we will continue to rely on the courts to interpret Proposition 215," Lockyer added. California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996 to legalize medical use of marijuana. But federal law enforcement authorities still insist the drug is illegal for any purpose, and California still lacks a statewide system and standards for implementing the vague law. Mower, a Tuolumne County diabetic with other health problems who says he uses marijuana to control his nausea and stimulate his appetite was convicted in 1998 of possessing and cultivating marijuana. Sheriff's deputies had found seven marijuana plants in Mower's home in February 1997 and, after the county instituted a three-plant limit later that year, searched his home again while he was hospitalized, finding 31 plants. At his three-day jury trial, Mower unsuccessfully argued the plants were for his own medical use and so legal under state law. The state Court of Appeal in 2000 upheld his conviction, rejecting arguments that state law offered Mower complete immunity from prosecution. Uelmen said his argument to the Supreme Court was "a refinement" of the argument made to the Court of Appeal; he claimed the law provided "a qualified or limited immunity, so really the court accepted the argument we were making." Chief Justice Ronald George, writing for the unanimous court, ruled state law doesn't protect patients and caregivers from arrest. But in addition to providing a defense at trial, George wrote, the law also permits a pre-trial motion to set aside criminal charges. And although a Tuolumne County Superior Court judge instructed Mower's jury that Mower had to prove his medical use of marijuana with a preponderance of the evidence -- meaning there's more evidence in favor than against, just enough to tip the scales in his favor -- the Supreme Court ruled just raising a reasonable doubt is enough. "Most similar is the defense of possession of a dangerous or restricted drug with a physician's prescription, against a charge of unlawful possession of such a drug," George wrote. "For that defense, a defendant need raise only a reasonable doubt." Although a regular prescription and a marijuana recommendation are not yet entirely the same, Uelmen said, "the court made it clear that for patients who have the requisite physician's approval, they're going to be treated (by the courts) the same as patients who have prescriptions for drugs." Judy Appel, deputy director of legal affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance's Oakland office, agreed, calling the ruling "a great victory." And as federal authorities intensify their efforts to crack down on medical marijuana activities no matter what state law says, "it's really good to have a strong state Supreme Court decision squarely upholding the state's and voters' will on this issue," she added. Uelmen said it's too bad the court didn't address plant-limit policies, adding "That's still an issue of grave confusion and concern statewide", but we'll just have to wait for another case to clear that up, or hopefully the (California) attorney general will take some action." Complete Title: State's Top Court Rules on Medical Pot Law No Shield from Arrest, but Cases Won't Always Go to Trial Source: Oakland Tribune, The (CA)Author: Josh Richman, Staff WriterPublished: Friday, July 19, 2002Copyright: 2002 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG NewspapersContact: triblet angnewspapers.comWebsite: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:OCBChttp://www.rxcbc.org/Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmState Court Gives Medical Pot Users New Protectionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13464.shtmlMedical Marijuana Users Can Get Some Immunity http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13463.shtmlState's Pot Laws Provide Protection for Patientshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13462.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment