California v. Orlosky
Annotate this CaseRobert Orlosky appealed his conviction of marijuana possession and cultivation. He argued the trial court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury on the statutory collective cultivation defense, which permits qualified medical marijuana patients to join together to cultivate marijuana to meet their medical needs. The trial court rejected application of the collective cultivation defense on the basis that defendant and his roommate (who were growing marijuana together) had not formed a marijuana collective with some indicia of formality. The Attorney General acknowledged that an instruction on the collective cultivation defense was likely warranted (although maintaining the particular instruction drafted by defense counsel did not accurately apply to the facts of this case). The Court of Appeal concluded, after review of the facts of this case, that the court erred in refusing to instruct on the defense. The Court also found the error was prejudicial. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.