Is a jury's failure to grant defendant's request for an instruction that he was not a primary caregiver of a qualified patient a reversible error?

In any event, the failure to grant defendant's request for the instruction is harmless because the jury necessarily resolved the issue adversely to him under proper instructions in finding him guilty of transportation. (People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 98.) As mentioned in footnote 5, ante, if the jury believed defendant was acting as a caregiver of qualified patients (or in connection with his own medical needs), it was instructed that this transportation was lawful. As part of the evidence under consideration, the jury had before it the stipulation to the status of defendant as caregiver and the four young men as qualified patients. Therefore, the jury necessarily rejected defendant's claim that he was acting exclusively in that capacity in transporting the marijuana, and would not have any factual basis for coming to a different conclusion in connection with possession for sale. Defendant's cavalier claim that the jury disregarded this instruction in favor of the prosecutor's argument (that even if a primary caregiver, defendant was still guilty of transportation), even if an accurate characterization of that argument, runs afoul of the authority cited in footnote 3, ante. We therefore reject his claim of reversible error.