FOLLOW US

The California Supreme Court has thrown out misdemeanor cannabis-related charges against an 85-year-old woman, finding the trial court was within its discretion to consider her lack of knowledge of the unlicensed operation happening in her building.

In an opinion issued Thursday, the justices reversed an appellate court ruling that had upended the trial court dismissal of charges against Emily Wheeler brought by the city of Los Angeles, noting that while knowledge is not a prerequisite for the charges, the city's policy has moved toward leniency regarding those least culpable in such crimes.

According to the opinion, Wheeler was charged in 2019 with misdemeanors after an informant purchased cannabis from another defendant who lived in Wheeler's building, and she moved to dismiss, saying she only owned the building and had no knowledge of the illegal activities.

The trial court denied her motion — because the statute in question does not allow for motions to dismiss from a defendant — but dismissed the charges anyway on its own motion, citing Wheeler's age and her blemish-free record, as well as the absence of evidence that she knew anything about the operation.

The city appealed, and the appeals courts reversed, finding the trial court wrongly considered Wheeler's lack of knowledge and wrongly granted a defense motion to dismiss, and Wheeler appealed to the state's Supreme Court.

In Thursday's opinion, the justices first noted that the city has enacted policies contemplating noncriminal treatment of the least culpable violators of the cannabis ordinances, such as through citations in the city's Administrative Citation Enforcement Program.

Given her professed lack of knowledge, and the lack of contrary evidence, the justices wrote that the trial court could reasonably put Wheeler at "the bottom end of the spectrum" of violative conduct when considering the nature and evidence of the crime.

While the appeals court found that Wheeler's lack of knowledge shouldn't have been considered, the justices wrote that "any circumstance of a crime, whether or not necessary to prove an element of the crime, might render a defendant less culpable without rendering her innocent. And 'mitigating' circumstances, to use the language of the appellate division, are ordinarily thought to include circumstances of the crime itself that, although not proving innocence, lessen culpability."

Dismissal despite indications of guilt doesn't show a "bare antipathy" for the law, the justices wrote, saying while Wheeler has not disputed her technical violations, her lack of knowledge can be considered while weighing dismissal.