## Facts

- A California Highway Patrol officer stopped James Walter Young after observing his car drift off the roadway and abruptly return.
- Young was the sole occupant; the car contained numerous personal items and bags.
- When asked about drugs, Young stated he had marijuana in a blue gift bag and handed it to the officer.
- The gift bag contained marijuana, a smoking device, multiple hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes, and related paraphernalia.
- A further search found additional marijuana in a large two-gallon plastic bag; total marijuana seized was approximately 135.3 grams.
- Young produced a physician’s written statement referencing the Compassionate Use Act authorizing medical marijuana use.
- Young was charged with felony transportation of marijuana under Health & Safety Code § 11360(a) and was convicted by a jury.
- The trial court refused to instruct the jury that the Compassionate Use Act provided a defense to transportation and limited argument that the Act legalized the charged conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5) provides a defense to felony transportation of marijuana under Health & Safety Code § 11360(a).
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Compassionate Use Act-based jury instructions and by restricting closing argument premised on that defense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the Compassionate Use Act does not, by itself, exempt transportation of marijuana prohibited by § 11360(a).
- Because the asserted Compassionate Use Act defense did not apply to the charged transportation offense, the trial court properly refused related jury instructions.
- The trial court permissibly restricted argument that the Compassionate Use Act legalized Young’s transportation of marijuana.

## Legal Principles

- The Compassionate Use Act creates protections centered on qualifying patients’ and caregivers’ possession and cultivation of marijuana; it does not create a general defense to marijuana transportation under § 11360(a).
- Courts may reject requested instructions and related argument when the proposed defense is not legally available for the charged offense.
- A defendant’s belief that conduct is authorized by statute is generally a mistake of law rather than a mistake of fact and does not excuse criminal liability absent a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Young’s felony transportation conviction, concluding that the Compassionate Use Act’s limited protections for medical marijuana use do not provide a defense to transportation under Health & Safety Code § 11360(a), and therefore the trial court properly declined to instruct on or permit argument based on that theory.


People v. Young, 92 Cal. App. 4th 229, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)