Court: Prop. 215 partially retroactive

ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAN FRANCISCO California's medical marijuana law can be used as a defense
in cases that arose earlier and were not yet final when the initiative
passed last November, a state appeals court ruled Friday.

The 1st District Court of Appeal also said that although Proposition 215
expressly provides a defense only to charges of cultivating and possessing
marijuana for medical use, it also can be used to counter charges of
transporting marijuana.

The amount and method of transportation must be "reasonably related to the
patient's current medical needs," the court said.

The 30 ruling entitles a San Francisco woman, Sudi Pebbles Trippet, to a
new trial on felony charges of possessing and transporting about two pounds of
marijuana.

A Kensington policeman stopped her car for an equipment violation in
October 1994 and found two bags of marijuana and a number of handrolled
cigarettes. Trippet, a street vendor who wears hats made of hemp, said she
smoked marijuana regularly for spiritual purposes and for relief of
migraine headaches she had suffered since childhood.

In a hearing before passage of Proposition 215, Contra Costa County
Superior Judge Richard Patsey ruled that Trippet had failed to show either
religious use or medical necessity. He refused to let the jury hear
testimony by a psychiatrist who said marijuana can ease migraines and that
he would have prescribed it for Trippet if it had been legal.

After the jury convicted Trippet, Patsey sentenced her to six months In
jail, with credit for 51 days she had already served. Sbe has been free during
her appeal.

The appeals court upheld Patsey's rejection of the religious and medical
necessity defenses but said Trippet was entitled to a new trial under
Proposition
215.

The November initiative legalized possession and cultivation of marijuana
with a doctor's recommendation or approval for use against cancer, AIDS,
glaucoma, migraines and other illnesses for which it provides relief.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

The court said the measure covers Trippet's case, under standard legal
principles allowing defendants to take advantage of favorable changes in
the law while their appeals are pending.

Proposition 215 does not allow possession of unlimited amounts of
marijuana, however, only amounts that are reasonably needed for personal
medical use, the court said.

"The statute certainly does not mean, for example that a person who claims
an occasional problem with arthritis pain may stockpile 100 pounds of
marijuana just in case it suddenly gets cold," said the opinion by Justice
Paul Haerle.

"The rule should be that the quantity possessed by the patient or the
primary care giver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed,
should be reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs."

A similar test should apply for charges of transporting marijuana, Haerle
said. Although Proposition 215 refers only to possession and cultivation,
"the voters could not have intended that a dying cancer patient's primary
caregiver could be subject to criminal sanctions for carrying otherwise
legally cultivated and possessed marijuana down a hallway to the patient's
room."