This is how I read the case. Since the defendant was attempting to introduce evidence necessary to an affirmative defense, that means that the patients she was providing mj to had NOT designated her as their caregiver. If they had, prosecution of her would have been barred, and she would not have been in court. Therefor, the Court's definition of "caregiver" ONLY applies in a situation where the defendant has not been designated. The Court did not attempt to find out if a person who had been designated as a caregiver was "really" one. In addition, the department of health has explicitly defined caregiver to include someone who "merely" provides mj. Unfortunately for Ms. Clendenin, that rule came out subsequent to her prosecution and the Court declined to give it retroactive effect. If the case is to be appealed, the last word is yet to come from the Colo. Supreme Court. If, in the meantime, the community changes its actions to fit the ruling, the practical effect will probably be that more dispensaries will require that one designate them as one's caregiver in order to purchase medicine from them, and growers, to be safe, will need to grow no more plants than 6x the number of patient designations that they have. I've always assumed the latter to be true anyway. Warren Edson (a local atty) has always advised that if you are going to grow for a dispensary, have a "pizza party" or a meet and greet with the appropriate number of patients and create a notebook with all their personal info in it to document the "relationship" that the Court did not find here. Once you can introduce even a small amount of evidence that an affirmative defense is applicable (a standard which the Court here held as a matter of law that the defendant could not meet) then the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not "medical" mj.