Farm Crop? No Way, Dude!
Last week I represented a young man charged with "grand theft marijuana" based on the theft of two almost mature plants out of a neighbor's back yard. After much argument at trial about whether the value of the plants at the time of the theft exceeded $400, the judge ruled that the prosection's estimate of value was wrongly based on the potential value after harvesting and packaging, and that the value of the stolen property was actually less than $400, but more than $100.
In California, theft of property worth under $400 is a misdemeanor petty theft, and not a felony grand theft. With a few exceptions. One of those exceptions is for theft of "domestic fowls, avocados, citrus or deciduous fruits, other fruits, nuts, artichokes, or other farm crops . . . of a value exceeding one hundred dollars."
Well, guess what. The judge ruled that homegrown back yard marijuana is a "farm crop." Oh yes. She did.
Can an argument be made that the lower monetary threshold for "farm crops" should not apply to back yard pot? Or am I just stoned?
posted by brainmarket @ 11:45 AM
10 Comments:
Appeal! I want to see the appellate opinion on this one.
Sorry you didn't win the argument today.
Anon.
ain't over yet, anon
the judge said she will hear furhter argument next week
yay for appeals, I said the same thing anon.
Or make a better argument after dragging us to Sacramento for "research"!!
Did you know that a certain county has a "rural crimes" deputy?
If the judge had been male, I would have guessed that he was distracted by Mary Jane's breasts. They seem to defy gravity. Otherwise, how in the world can an illegal substance be granted a monetary value in the context of a legal inquiy (money is defined as 'legal' tender, after all)? Or is California always looking for the new interpretation?
Yes Rebel, Mary Jane is breaking the law. The law of gravity. :)
I agree that it is not good policy to attach a legitimate market value to contraband. In fact, I made an argument at trial that the "thief" was actually doing the community a good turn by halting a crime in progress, that being the illegal cultivation of marijuana.
Rather than this decision beign the product of Californian judicial "creativity," I think this was just one more example of why prosecutors should not become judges.
I thought the "victim" had a med. marijuana prescription? The cultivation was therefore legal?
Nim: he did have a prescription but it was hearsay without the prescribing doctor testifying
also cultivation is illegal under federal law, even with a prescription
i don't see how cultivation affects interstate commerce =/
nim:
the interstate commerce link is very tenuous
i believe the supreme court pulled something out of its ass along the lines of fertilizer and electricity etc coming across state lines
Post a Comment
<< Home