Quote Originally Posted by Feijao
quote from WARREN EDSON ::

I am just saying that if you do not offer wellness services as part of your "caregiving" package, you could be arrested tomorrow if you grow or distibute to others. The DA's could start filing cases tomorrow using the new definition without any legislation at all.



Warren Edson, Esq.
1490 Lafayette St., Suite 407
Denver, CO. 80218
(303) 831-8188
warrenedson.com


QUTOE FROM BRETT BARNEY ::

I concur with Warren on this matter. I think the decision is clearly indicative of the collective mind of the appellate panel, and how they will treat any future appeals, at least until the legislature acts. The Court?s specific holding in Clendenin was that ?to qualify as a ?primary caregiver?, a person must do more than merely supply a patient who has a debilitating medical condition with marijuana.? Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Court does not go on to say exactly how much more is required to be a ?primary caregiver? and therefore does little to help us understand to what extent one must be involved in the patients care regimen to be protected by the affirmative defense. What is clear is that those whose only service provided to a patient involves supplying medicine will be subject to prosecution, and will be unlikely to be permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the affirmative defense in a manner that will be successful. This may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction at the trial court level, but on appeal, one can expect this result. At the trial level, the court acts as the finder of fact, and based on the facts presented, determines whether the defendant is entitled to present the affirmative defense at trial. The Appeals panel found no error in the Boulder trial court?s conclusion that Clendenin?s lack of personal relationship with her patients precluded her from asserting the defense, so from this decision, we can take away two pieces of knowledge; 1) caregivers should know their patients personally, and 2) they should be involved in the patients care in a way that involves more than ?merely supplying a patient ?with marijuana.?
As I've said elsewhere however, this holding only applies to cases where the defendant seeks to rely on the affirmative defense, not the bar to prosecution also contained in the Amendment, at least until a case comes down with that fact situation.