People v. Jackson, 148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 375

Jackson was charged with the sale of marijuana and possession for sale, and the People moved under Evidence Code section 402 to bar MMPA defenses.
Jackson testified that Answerdam had about 1,676 members, most of whom did not cultivate; he and a few others cultivated and provided marijuana.
The trial court found members qualified patients and the collective non-profit, but concluded the large membership meant the MMPA defense did not apply.
Consequently, the court excluded the MMPA defense, and Jackson was convicted and placed on three years of formal probation.
On appeal, the court reversed, holding the MMPA defense could be presented where the organization is nonprofit and not operated for profit.
Remand was ordered to instruct the jury to consider nonprofit status and profit motive, including membership size, purchase volume, and governance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 402 ruling properly barred the MMPA defense	Jackson	People	Trial court erred; MMPA defense may be presented
Whether large collective size per se defeats the MMPA defense	Jackson	People	Not per se preclusive; remand required to assess nonprofit vs profit
What factors determine nonprofit status for MMPA defense on remand	Jackson	People	Jury must consider nonprofit elements and governance, membership size, and volume of business

People v. Jones, None (2003) (CA appellate case discussing reasonable doubt standard for MMPA/CUA defenses)
People v. Mower, None (2002) (CA Supreme Court describing minimal burden for CUA defenses and jury credibility)
Colvin, 203 Cal.App.4th 1029 (2012) (broader reading of 11362.775; large collectives may still qualify for MMPA defense)
Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (2005) (MMPA defense instruction available despite hundreds of members)
Hochanadel, 176 Cal.App.4th 997 (2009) (Guidelines weight in MMPA considerations; nonprofit requirement noted)