News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: California High Court Defines Caregiver' Narrowly In Medpot Law |
Title: | US CA: California High Court Defines Caregiver' Narrowly In Medpot Law |
Published On: | 2008-11-26 |
Source: | Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-11-26 15:01:13 |
CALIFORNIA HIGH COURT DEFINES CAREGIVER' NARROWLY IN MEDPOT LAW
CalNORML Calls It A Blow' To Growers
The California Supreme Court on Monday for the first time defined
"caregiver" as it relates to medical marijuana growing and struck down
a line of defense that many marijuana growers have used when faced
with prosecution.
According to the Court, a caregiver must have a consistent
relationship with the medical marijuana patient and one that existed
before the use of medical marijuana. It specifically looked at the
wording of the medical marijuana law, Prop. 215, which defines a
caregiver as the person who has "consistently assumed responsibility
for the housing, health, or safety of that person." The Court
concluded that simply supplying someone with medical marijuana - or
even taking them to the doctor now and then - does not make you a
caregiver for the purpose of protecting you from prosecution for
cultivating and transporting marijuana.
The California Supreme Court's decision stems from a case in Santa
Cruz County in which Roger Mentch was convicted of marijuana
cultivation and transportation even though he had two people testify
that he provided them with medical marijuana and he testified that the
more than 175 marijuana plants growing in his home were solely for
either his own medicinal use or medical marijuana sales.
Mentch's defense was based on his contention that he was protected
from prosecution by his role as a caregiver for others, defined by him
as the person who took responsibility for a medical marijuana
patient's health by providing that patient with marijuana.
But he was convicted in trial court. He had the conviction reversed on
appeal by arguing that the trial court judge should have instructed
the jury that he conceivably had a caregiver defense.
The California Supreme Court, however, decided to take the case in
order to define caregiver in the law and since it went on to define
caregiver as much more than supplying marijuana, the court concluded
that the trial judge had correctly omitted the caregiving defense in
the instructions to the jury and that Mentch's appeal had no basis.
The legal and law enforcement community in Mendocino County was still
digesting the ruling Tuesday, but comments were sent out from
California NORML, the organization dedicated to decriminalizing
marijuana growing.
Calling the court's action, "a blow to medical marijuana providers,"
CalNORML stated, "The Court's ruling effectively limits the caregiver
defense to relatives, personal friends and attendants, nurses, etc. In
particular, it excludes its use by medical marijuana buyers' clubs,'
retail dispensaries and delivery services. The remaining legal defense
for medical marijuana providers is to organize as patient cooperatives
and collectives, which are legal under SB 420."
"The Mentch decision highlights the inadequacy of California's current
medical marijuana supply system," said CalNORML coordinator Dale
Gieringer. "The law needs to allow for professional licensed growers,
as with other medicinal herbs."
Confusion over who qualified as a caregiver led to what some
communities believed was the abuse of the medical marijuana
compassionate use law. Marijuana growers, some growing medical
marijuana and some simply growing for the commercial market, would
display "caregiver" cards, which because of the confusion over the law
was often enough to protect them from prosecution or which they
successfully used in their defense in court. Cases in Mendocino County
- - including one on Walker Road in Willits where several pounds of
dried marijuana and hundreds of marijuana plants had to be left alone
by deputies because the grower displayed 19 "caregiver" cards - led to
a voter backlash in this county called Measure B, which sought to
limit medical marijuana growing to the state regulations of six mature
or 12 immature plants. Although Measure B passed in June, the state
regulations are now up in the air and will also be clarified by the
California Supreme Court, which has agreed to review them.
CalNORML Calls It A Blow' To Growers
The California Supreme Court on Monday for the first time defined
"caregiver" as it relates to medical marijuana growing and struck down
a line of defense that many marijuana growers have used when faced
with prosecution.
According to the Court, a caregiver must have a consistent
relationship with the medical marijuana patient and one that existed
before the use of medical marijuana. It specifically looked at the
wording of the medical marijuana law, Prop. 215, which defines a
caregiver as the person who has "consistently assumed responsibility
for the housing, health, or safety of that person." The Court
concluded that simply supplying someone with medical marijuana - or
even taking them to the doctor now and then - does not make you a
caregiver for the purpose of protecting you from prosecution for
cultivating and transporting marijuana.
The California Supreme Court's decision stems from a case in Santa
Cruz County in which Roger Mentch was convicted of marijuana
cultivation and transportation even though he had two people testify
that he provided them with medical marijuana and he testified that the
more than 175 marijuana plants growing in his home were solely for
either his own medicinal use or medical marijuana sales.
Mentch's defense was based on his contention that he was protected
from prosecution by his role as a caregiver for others, defined by him
as the person who took responsibility for a medical marijuana
patient's health by providing that patient with marijuana.
But he was convicted in trial court. He had the conviction reversed on
appeal by arguing that the trial court judge should have instructed
the jury that he conceivably had a caregiver defense.
The California Supreme Court, however, decided to take the case in
order to define caregiver in the law and since it went on to define
caregiver as much more than supplying marijuana, the court concluded
that the trial judge had correctly omitted the caregiving defense in
the instructions to the jury and that Mentch's appeal had no basis.
The legal and law enforcement community in Mendocino County was still
digesting the ruling Tuesday, but comments were sent out from
California NORML, the organization dedicated to decriminalizing
marijuana growing.
Calling the court's action, "a blow to medical marijuana providers,"
CalNORML stated, "The Court's ruling effectively limits the caregiver
defense to relatives, personal friends and attendants, nurses, etc. In
particular, it excludes its use by medical marijuana buyers' clubs,'
retail dispensaries and delivery services. The remaining legal defense
for medical marijuana providers is to organize as patient cooperatives
and collectives, which are legal under SB 420."
"The Mentch decision highlights the inadequacy of California's current
medical marijuana supply system," said CalNORML coordinator Dale
Gieringer. "The law needs to allow for professional licensed growers,
as with other medicinal herbs."
Confusion over who qualified as a caregiver led to what some
communities believed was the abuse of the medical marijuana
compassionate use law. Marijuana growers, some growing medical
marijuana and some simply growing for the commercial market, would
display "caregiver" cards, which because of the confusion over the law
was often enough to protect them from prosecution or which they
successfully used in their defense in court. Cases in Mendocino County
- - including one on Walker Road in Willits where several pounds of
dried marijuana and hundreds of marijuana plants had to be left alone
by deputies because the grower displayed 19 "caregiver" cards - led to
a voter backlash in this county called Measure B, which sought to
limit medical marijuana growing to the state regulations of six mature
or 12 immature plants. Although Measure B passed in June, the state
regulations are now up in the air and will also be clarified by the
California Supreme Court, which has agreed to review them.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...