Galambos

People v. Galambos

Good Law
104 Cal. App. 4th 1147·128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 844·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5234·2002 Daily Journal DAR 14658·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12444
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 26, 2002C032873California7,763 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kolkey, J.

Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, grants a limited immunity from prosecution for the cultivation or possession of marijuana by either a patient or a patient’s primary caretaker, “who possesses or cultivates [the] marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd. (d).) Defendant Robert Michael Galambos, Jr., claimed to be cultivating marijuana for himself and a cannabis buyers’ cooperative for his own and others’ medical use. Following a preliminary hearing, the trial court refused to extend the immunity afforded by Proposition 215 to cover defendant’s cultivation of marijuana for the cooperative and disallowed his common law defense of medical necessity. A jury convicted him of marijuana cultivation (§ 11358).

This appeal requires us to decide whether the limited statutory immunity afforded under Proposition 215 is compatible with the common law defense of medical necessity or, alternatively, the broader construction of the proposition advocated by the defendant.

We conclude that judicial recognition of the broader and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.