Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

Brief Bank # B-871 (Re: F 12.24 n1 [Marijuana Cultivation: Knowledge Requirement].)

CAVEAT:  The file below was not prepared by FORECITE.  FORECITE has not made any attempt to review or edit this material and is not responsible for its content or format.  FORECITE cannot guarantee the information is complete, accurate or up-to-date. You are advised to conduct your own independent, comprehensive research on all issues addressed in the material below.

Date Of Brief: November, 2000

III.

 

THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, AND

INSUFFICIENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS, UPON WHICH TO

BASE A CONVICTION FOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA

A.            OVERVIEW

As with the charge of possession for sale of marijuana, there is a requirement in a charge of cultivation of marijuana that the person have knowledge of the narcotic character of the drug.  Appellant asserts that there was a complete failure of proof on this element, and that there were incorrect jury instructions on the point.

B.            KNOWLEDGE OF NARCOTIC CHARACTER OF THE DRUG

The seminal case stating that the defendant must have knowledge of the narcotic character of marijuana, in a charge of cultivation of marijuana, is People v. Gorg (1955) 45 Cal.2d 776, 780.  This holding was cited with approval in People v. Coria (1999) 21 Cal.4th 868, 874-875.

As shown in the prior argument, there was a dearth of proof that appellant had knowledge of the narcotic effect of marijuana.

C.            FAULTY JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

The trial court instructed the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 12.24 as follows:

Defendants are accused in Count One of having violated section 11358 of the Health and Safety Code, a crime.  Every person who plants, cultivates  or processes any marijuana or any part thereof is guilty of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358, a crime.  In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved:

1.  A person planted, cultivated or processed a marijuana plant; and

2.  That person knew it was a marijuana plant or some part thereof.  (CT 107.)

The jury instructions were thus deficient in failing to inform the jury that one of the elements of cultivation of marijuana is that the person must know of the narcotic character of the plant.

D.            PREJUDICE

The most recent decisions of the United States and the California Supreme Courts indicate that failure to instruct on one element of a charge is not reversible error per se, but must be tested under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18.  (Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S.    [119 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-1848]; People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 500-505.)

The error in the instant case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  If the jury had been correctly instructed, they would have had to weigh the evidence that appellant had knowledge of the narcotic effect or character of marijuana.  As demonstrated in the previous argument, although there was ample evidence that appellant had knowledge of the medicinal character of marijuana, there was a dearth of evidence that he had knowledge of the narcotic character of the drug.  The evidence basically just proved that appellant was growing the marijuana in order to alleviate the pain and other symptoms of his cerebral palsy and his post-traumatic arthritis.  This evidence in no way proved that appellant was aware of any other effect of marijuana.  Therefore the failure to require the jury to weigh this element of the charge could not have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

E.             CONCLUSION       

If this court determines that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment of conviction, then that judgment must be reversed with directions to dismiss that count.  If this court only determines that the jury instructions on the cultivation count were erroneous, the judgment of conviction on that count must be reversed with directions to afford a retrial on that count.

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES