Can a jury consider the existence of an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana collectives or dispensaries as a factor in determining whether defendant was entitled to raise the MMP defense?

The instructions given in this case erroneously informed the jury that it could consider the existence of an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana collectives or dispensaries as a factor in determining whether defendant was entitled to raise the MMP defense, and as evidence that the collective was unlawful. In these respects, the instruction was erroneous. Violation of the ordinance means defendant may be the subject of a nuisance abatement action, but it does not, by itself, render the collective unlawful under state law. If defendant established the elements of the affirmative defense, he would have been exempt from criminal prosecution under state law, although the City could bring a nuisance abatement action under the ordinance. Nothing in the

Page 18

other instructions or the arguments of counsel cured the instructional errors. (People v. London (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 544, 565.)

d. Prejudice