What is the test for an error in the instruction of a medical marijuana defense?

"In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys. The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant's rights." (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585.) We find the jury would have understood the court's instruction to provide a defense for the possession and transportation of marijuana that was for defendant's personal medical use as well as for the medical use of other members of the collective.

In any event, any error in the instruction was harmless because the jury resolved the key question--the purpose for which defendant possessed and transported marijuana--adversely to him. (See People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 96-97 [error in failing to instruct on lesser included offense harmless, because factual question posed by omitted instruction resolved unfavorably to defendant].) The jury concluded that defendant possessed the marijuana for sale, a finding that is inconsistent with a claim the drugs were possessed only for personal medicinal use. (People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 98-99 [failure to give medical marijuana defense instruction harmless where jury found possession for sale].)

Page 15

The judgment is affirmed.