The People v. Dowl
57 Cal. 4th 1079
| Cal. | 2013Background
- CUA and MMP authorize medical use of marijuana under defined conditions.
- Dowl claimed a medical-use defense and argued the evidence showed lawful possession, not sale.
- Officer Williamson testified that Dowl possessed marijuana for sale based on quantity, packaging, and belt buckle; he had nine years’ experience and limited training on medical-use ID cards.
- Dowl had a medical marijuana ID card and claimed prescription; he stored marijuana in a WD-40 can with a hidden compartment.
- Bags of marijuana found in Dowl’s car were organized in a way prosecutors argued indicated sale; Dowl had a prior conviction for possession for sale.
- Jury convicted Dowl of transportation and possession for sale; trial included qualified-expert testimony dispute which led to appellate analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer’s expertise was required to prove sale intent | People argued expertise supports sale intent | Dowl argued officer unqualified to distinguish medical vs sale possession | Forfeited; admissibility not reviewable on appeal; evidence still sufficient |
| Whether failure to object to qualifications bars appeal on weight of evidence | People contends forfeiture does not bar substantial-evidence review | Dowl contends review allowed for insufficient-evidence claim | Forfeiture applies to admissibility; substantial-evidence review still available to challenge sufficiency |
| Whether evidence supported intent to sell despite medical-use defense | People relied on circumstances indicating sale | Dowl argued evidence showed medical use or genuine doubt | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction; circumstances justified opinion of sale intent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hunt, 4 Cal.3d 231 (Cal. 1971) (limits of officer testimony on sale intent when prescription drugs are involved)
- People v. Chakos, 158 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (officer need not be medical marijuana expert to opine on sale when defendant raises CUA defense)
- People v. Wright, 40 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2006) (CuA defense affirmative; burden on prosecution to show non-medical use)
- Tahoe Nat. Bank v. Phillips, 4 Cal.3d 11 (Cal. 1971) (exception to rules on preservation and substantial evidence review)
- People v. Coleman, 46 Cal.3d 749 (Cal. 1988) (forfeiture and expert qualification analysis context)
- People v. Williams, 43 Cal.4th 584 (Cal. 2008) (preserves review of evidentiary rulings and weighting of expert testimony)
- People v. Davis, 62 Cal.2d 791 (Cal. 1965) (foundation and qualification of expert testimony)
- People v. Eubanks, 53 Cal.4th 110 (Cal. 2011) (impact of expert qualifications on weight of testimony)