## Facts

- Patrick K. Kelly, a qualified medical-marijuana patient, was charged with marijuana possession and cultivation under California Health & Safety Code §§ 11357 and 11358.
- Kelly sought to prevent the prosecution from relying on Health & Safety Code § 11362.77, enacted as part of the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), which set fixed numerical limits on marijuana possession and cultivation.
- Kelly argued § 11362.77 unconstitutionally amended the voter-enacted Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA) without voter approval, contrary to Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(c).
- The trial court denied the motion, treated § 11362.77 as a legislative clarification, and Kelly was convicted.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, held § 11362.77 unconstitutional as an amendment to the CUA, and severed it from the MMP.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 11362.77 impermissibly amended the CUA and, if partially invalid, whether it must be severed entirely.

## Issues

1. Whether Health & Safety Code § 11362.77’s fixed quantity limits, when used to restrict a defendant’s CUA defense to criminal charges, constitute an unconstitutional legislative amendment of the CUA under Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(c).
2. If § 11362.77 is invalid in part, whether it must be severed entirely from the MMP or may remain operative for other MMP purposes.

## Decision

- The court held § 11362.77 is invalid to the extent it burdens or limits a defense under the CUA to criminal charges for possession or cultivation.
- The court held § 11362.77 was not entirely void and should not be completely severed from the MMP.
- The court ruled the quantity limits may continue to operate within the MMP’s voluntary identification-card scheme to define the scope of statutory immunity from arrest for those who register and remain within the limits.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s invalidation of § 11362.77 as applied to CUA defenses, but reversed the Court of Appeal’s complete severance remedy.

## Legal Principles

- The Legislature may not amend a voter initiative statute unless the initiative permits amendment; an amendment includes legislation that changes the initiative’s scope or legal effect, not only text.
- The CUA provides qualified patients and primary caregivers an affirmative defense to certain marijuana possession and cultivation charges when the amount is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs; the CUA does not impose fixed numerical caps.
- A statute that substitutes bright-line quantity caps for the CUA’s case-specific reasonable-medical-needs standard conflicts with and restricts the CUA and is an unconstitutional amendment when used to limit the CUA defense in criminal prosecutions.
- The Legislature may enact supplemental statutory protections alongside an initiative (including protections beyond the initiative), so long as they do not restrict the initiative’s substantive protections; the MMP’s ID-card safe harbor from arrest may be defined by statutory quantity limits even though those limits cannot restrict the CUA defense at trial.

## Conclusion

Section 11362.77’s fixed marijuana quantity limits cannot be used to limit a defendant’s CUA reasonable-medical-needs defense to possession or cultivation charges, but the limits remain operative within the MMP to define the voluntary ID-card program’s statutory immunity from arrest.


People v. Kelly, 47 Cal. 4th 1008, 222 P.3d 186 (Cal. 2010)