Supreme Court Supports Dismissed Marijuana Charges

[Guest]

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that drug charges against four San Diego medical marijuana activists were properly dismissed by a Superior Court judge in 2001, it was reported Friday.

 

Source.

 

KFMB.COM -- Channel 8 San Diego, April 23, 2004 -- "SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS JUDGE ON DISMISSED MARIJUANA CHARGES"

 

(04-23-2004)

 

Thursday's ruling ends the case against clinic owner Carolyn Konow and her son, Steve Rohr, and workers Amy Toosley and Daniel O'Neal, The San Diego Union Tribune. They had faced drug possession and drug sales charges.

 

While the case centered on the activities of a now-defunct Hillcrest medical marijuana clinic, the justices wrestled more with the question of what authority judges have in reviewing decisions made by other judges, and the standards of dismissing charges, the newspaper reported

 

The case began four years ago when San Diego police detectives conducted sting operations on the California Alternative Medicinal Center.

 

The clinic had been in operation for two years, selling marijuana under the provisions of Proposition 215, the 1996 voter-approved measure that legalized marijuana use for medicinal purposes -- a right not recognized under federal law.

 

Undercover police unsuccessfully tried to buy marijuana at the clinic, once presenting a fake doctor's recommendation, but were refused service. Police then recruited a former employee who bought $400 worth of marijuana.

 

The drug charges were dismissed at a September 2000 court hearing when Judge William Mudd said Proposition 215 was so poorly written that it violated constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

 

In November 2000, Judge Howard Shore reversed Mudd's decision, ordering him to look solely at the sufficiency of evidence.

 

When the case went back to Mudd, he ordered a trial, saying there was sufficient evidence under the law to support the charges. Mudd told defense lawyers that, under Shore's direction, he was not able to dismiss the charges.

 

In January 2003, Judge Michael Wellington dismissed the case, ruling that Mudd was mistaken when he said he didn't have the authority to do so.

 

The San Diego-based 4th District Court of Appeal ruled Wellington was wrong and ordered the charges reinstated.

 

But Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George wrote that Wellington was correct to conclude that Mudd denied the defendants a key legal right by erroneously saying he could not dismiss the charges on his own. © 2004 Midwest Television, Inc.

 

Edited April 25, 2004 by Chong