People v. Onesra Enterprises
JAD16-12
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- On Aug. 27–28, 2013, LAPD officers investigated Euphoric Caregivers (d/b/a Onesra Enterprises) and observed customers purchase and show medical marijuana; officers concluded Euphoric distributed marijuana to qualified patients.
- Defendants Anna Tyutina and Onesra Enterprises were tried in a court trial and convicted for violating LAMC §45.19.6.2 (operating/participating in a medical marijuana business) and LAMC §12.21(A)(1)(a) (using property for an unpermitted use).
- Defense presented business tax registration certificates (BTRCs) and witnesses claiming prior registration, tax payments, Measure M payment, and tax amnesty; prosecution presented evidence the relevant registration as a medical marijuana collective occurred in 2013.
- Defendants moved for acquittal under Penal Code §1118 after the People’s case; the trial court denied the motion and later found defendants failed to meet the 2011–2012 BTRC requirement in LAMC §45.19.6.3(E), denying limited immunity.
- On appeal defendants argued insufficiency of evidence, entitlement to immunity under LAMC §45.19.6.3, preemption by state medical-marijuana law and tax-amnesty protection, mischaracterization as a nuisance/zoning issue, and structural error in limiting closing time; the appellate division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / §1118 denial | People: evidence showed Onesra operated an MMB and exhibits supported Tyutina’s participation | Defendants: People failed to prove licensing, and no evidence Tyutina operated Euphoric on charged dates | Denial affirmed: record (including untransmitted exhibits) supports conviction; corporate officers can be criminally liable for knowingly participating in illegal corporate conduct |
| Immunity under LAMC §45.19.6.3(E) | People: subdivision E required registration in 2011 or 2012; defendants failed that requirement | Defendants: had prior (2007) registration and renewals/tax amnesty, so they satisfied/ substantially complied with registration requirement | Held: defendants failed to prove entitlement to immunity; absent transmitted exhibits, court reasonably found proper registration occurred in 2013, not 2011–2012; substantial-compliance argument rejected |
| State preemption / Kirby reliance | People: local ban on MMBs regulates land use and is not preempted by state MMPA | Defendants: Kirby shows MMPA preempts local prosecution for medical-marijuana activity | Held: Kirby distinguishable—Kirby involved personal cultivation; municipalities may regulate or ban MMBs and land-use regulation is not preempted by MMPA |
| Tax-amnesty / zoning/nuisance and trial procedural claims | People: prosecution targets illegal operation of MMB, not tax liability; trial procedures were proper | Defendants: tax amnesty barred prosecution; case wrongly treated as nuisance/zoning; closing-time limit was structural error | Held: Tax-amnesty inapplicable because prosecution was for illegal operation; zoning/nuisance and structural-argument claims forfeited or unsupported and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles, 243 Cal.App.4th 1029 (2016) (discusses Prop D amendments and limited immunity framework)
- Kirby v. County of Fresno, 242 Cal.App.4th 940 (2015) (narrow preemption holding re: personal cultivation vs. local bans)
- City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Ctr., Inc., 56 Cal.4th 729 (2013) (municipalities may declare medical-marijuana distribution a nuisance and abate it)
- People v. Toomey, 157 Cal.App.3d 1 (1984) (corporate officers liable for knowingly participating in corporate illegal conduct)
- People v. Leonard, 228 Cal.App.4th 465 (2014) (appellate presumption supporting trial court when exhibits absent from record)
- People v. Trinity Holistic Caregivers, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9 (2015) (limited immunity unavailable where MMB violates statutory disqualifiers)