## Facts

- Michael C. Urziceanu formed “FloraCare,” describing it as a medical marijuana cooperative for qualified patients and primary caregivers under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), Health & Safety Code § 11362.5.
- Police investigated after receiving information that marijuana was being distributed from Urziceanu’s Citrus Heights home; surveillance indicated many visitors had physician recommendations for medical marijuana.
- The prosecution contended FloraCare operated as an illegal commercial cultivation and sales enterprise and presented evidence of cultivation, distribution to numerous individuals, and payments characterized as sales.
- Urziceanu asserted he honestly believed the CUA permitted collective/cooperative cultivation and distribution, and that payments reflected reimbursement of shared expenses rather than unlawful sales.
- Urziceanu was charged with cultivation, sale, conspiracy to sell marijuana, and felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, among other offenses.
- The trial court excluded substantial evidence offered to show Urziceanu’s good-faith misunderstanding of the CUA and refused jury instructions on mistake of law and vagueness as defenses to the conspiracy charge.
- The jury acquitted Urziceanu of cultivation and sale, but convicted him of conspiracy to sell marijuana and firearm/ammunition possession offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the CUA, standing alone, authorizes collective or cooperative cultivation and distribution of marijuana by qualified patients and primary caregivers.
2. Whether a defendant’s good-faith mistake about the CUA’s legal scope can negate the specific intent required for conspiracy to sell marijuana.
3. Whether the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.7 et seq., provides a potential defense to a conspiracy-to-sell charge based on cooperative/collective medical marijuana activity.
4. Whether the trial court adequately resolved the motion to suppress based on alleged knock-notice violations when executing a search warrant.

## Decision

- The court held the CUA alone does not authorize collective growing and distribution of marijuana by groups of qualified patients and caregivers.
- The court reversed the conspiracy-to-sell conviction because the trial court improperly restricted evidence and refused instructions on a legally viable mistake-of-law theory that could negate conspiracy’s specific intent.
- The court held the MMPA may provide a potential defense that must be considered and, if supported by evidence, presented to the jury on retrial.
- The court remanded for the trial court to make necessary factual findings on the knock-notice suppression issue.
- The convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition were left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- The CUA provides limited protections for qualified patients and primary caregivers but does not, by itself, authorize cooperative or collective cultivation and distribution arrangements.
- Conspiracy is a specific-intent crime requiring intent to agree and intent that the target offense be committed; where a defendant’s good-faith legal misunderstanding would negate that intent, mistake of law may be considered by the jury.
- A trial court commits reversible error by excluding substantial evidence and refusing instructions supporting a defense theory that would negate an element of the charged offense, when the theory is legally supported.
- The MMPA created statutory provisions contemplating certain collective or cooperative cultivation among qualified persons and may supply a defense depending on the facts and proper jury instruction.
- When a suppression ruling turns on disputed execution facts (including knock-notice compliance), the trial court must make adequate factual findings to permit meaningful appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the CUA did not itself legalize medical marijuana cooperatives, but that a defendant’s good-faith misunderstanding of the CUA could negate the intent required for conspiracy to sell marijuana; because the jury was not allowed to hear key evidence or receive proper instructions, the conspiracy conviction was reversed and remanded for retrial, with further proceedings ordered on the unresolved knock-notice suppression findings and with potential application of defenses under the MMPA.


People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal. App. 4th 747, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)