People v. Urziceanu
2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8301, 132 Cal. App. 4th 747, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 859 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's good faith mistake of law is a valid defense to a specific intent crime, such as conspiracy, if the mistaken belief negates the required intent to violate the law.
Facts:
- Michael C. Urziceanu, a qualified medical marijuana patient, established a cooperative called FloraCare in August 2000 to cultivate and distribute medical marijuana.
- Urziceanu and his codefendant, Susan B. Rodger, operated FloraCare from a residence in Citrus Heights, California.
- To obtain marijuana, members had to present a physician's recommendation, provide identification, and sign forms designating FloraCare as their primary caregiver and agreeing to reimburse the cooperative for costs through 'donations'.
- Urziceanu claimed he believed his actions were lawful under the Compassionate Use Act and that he had consulted with law enforcement officials and attorneys to ensure compliance.
- On August 9, 2001, an undercover officer, Sergeant Karlene Doupe, posed as a patient, completed FloraCare's paperwork, and purchased three bags of marijuana from Rodger for $150.
- On September 18, 2001, police executed a search warrant on the FloraCare residence, seizing 159 marijuana plants, processed marijuana, cash, firearms, and ammunition.
- During the police investigation and at trial, Urziceanu maintained that FloraCare was a legitimate collective intended to provide medical marijuana safely and affordably to qualified patients.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged Michael C. Urziceanu in a California trial court with multiple offenses, including conspiracy to sell marijuana and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- At trial, the court denied Urziceanu's request to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of law.
- The jury found Urziceanu guilty of conspiracy to sell marijuana and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
- The jury acquitted Urziceanu of cultivating marijuana, sale of marijuana, and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition.
- The trial court sentenced Urziceanu to three years in prison for the conspiracy conviction.
- Urziceanu (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court erred in refusing his requested jury instructions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's good faith but mistaken belief that their conduct is legal under the Compassionate Use Act constitute a valid 'mistake of law' defense that negates the specific intent required for a conspiracy charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Robie, J.
Yes, a defendant's good faith mistaken belief that their conduct is legal constitutes a defense to a conspiracy charge because it negates the specific intent to violate the law, which is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy. While ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse, conspiracy is a specific intent crime that requires proof of an 'evil or corrupt' agreement to do an unlawful act. If a defendant honestly and reasonably believed their actions were permitted under the law, such as the ambiguous Compassionate Use Act, they lack the specific intent to violate that law. The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on this defense and by excluding evidence of the defendant's good faith belief. The court also held that the newly enacted Medical Marijuana Program Act, which expressly permits cooperatives, should be applied retroactively and provides the defendant with a potential defense on retrial.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction between general intent crimes, where a mistake of law is no defense, and specific intent crimes like conspiracy, where it can be. By allowing a good faith mistake of law defense, the court provides a shield for individuals operating in legally unsettled areas, such as the early medical marijuana industry. This precedent requires prosecutors in conspiracy cases to prove not only that the defendants agreed to commit certain acts, but that they did so with the specific intent to violate the law. The decision underscores that for conspiracy convictions, an 'evil intent' is paramount, and a genuine, albeit incorrect, belief of legality can defeat this element.
