OFF THE WIRE
Jovan Jackson won an appeal on his marijuana distribution charge,
sending his case back to the San Diego Superior Court should the
prosecutor decide to retry him. His appeal was based on the fact that
the trial court judge didn’t allow him to use the state’s medical
marijuana laws in his defense of the Answerdam marijuana dispensary; the
judge said the dispensary was solely a profit-making business, and not a
cooperative. The Appeals Court disagreed.
Jackson maintains that the Answerdam dispensary did not generate any
profits, that it was established to serve patients. He said that he and
five others cultivated marijuana for around 1,600 members of the
collective. Though the prosecutors argued Answerdam brought in $1,000 to
$1,500 on any given day, Jackson could have potentially argued that
this was merely for supplies and not a profit.
Now, if the prosecutor decides to retry him, he could have the opportunity to make this argument.
“We continue to embrace our interpretation that the Legislature
limited the protected activity to the cultivation of marijuana for
medical purposes and not large scale distribution of marijuana,” Steve Walker, spokesperson for the District Attorney’s Office.
The state supreme court could stop the potential retrial if it decides to take up the case.
“It’s our hope that the courts will provide more clarity as to the
scope of the protected activity, serving to curb abuses of the
Compassionate Use Act that have arisen since the passage of the law,”
said Walker.
Superior Court Judge Howard Shore erred, the appeals court said,
when he said that Jackson couldn’t use the medical marijuana defense
simply because of the large number of members of his cooperative. This
number, Shore argued, suggested that Answerdam was more of a
distribution business than anything else.
Though this shouldn’t preclude him from using the defense, the
three-judge Appeals Court panel said, the judge or jury at trial should
use this information in determining whether or not the “collective” is,
in fact, operating on a nonprofit basis.
The specifics of the medical marijuana laws have led to many
conflicts in the criminal courts, and its cases like this one that could
prove to clarify the law and it’s specifics. For instance, if the state
supreme court took up this case, they could settle what dispensaries
are allowed to operate and which are not.
In the meantime, as the laws are sorted out, many prosecutors will
continue to file charges where they see fit, seeking clarification where
interpretation of the laws may be muddled. California marijuana laws
remain muddled and at odds with each other and reality. It will be
years before the lines between legitimate use and what the government
considers felony drug charges are sorted out.
At least until cannabis is ultimately legalized.
If you are facing charges of marijuana possession, sales, or any other drug offense, contact our attorneys today to discuss your case and how we might be able to help.