The motion cited extensive case law, critical examination of the preliminary hearing testimony of Deputies Avila and Hoffman, attorney general guidelines, police reports, and of the hearing itself.
In denying the motion, Judge Martin did not address the medical marijuana defense or any other argument preferred by the defense.
The ruling denying the motion is short and to the point stating:
In ruling on a motion to set aside the information, the reviewing court may not substitute it's judgment for that of the magistrate, and if there is some evidence to support the information, the reviewing court will not inquire into it's sufficiency. Rideout v Superior Court (1967( 67 Cal.2d 471, 474
The evidence at the preliminary hearing need only support a reasonable inference of guilt, and such inference need not be the only inference the court could draw, or even the more probable one.
The court finds there is some evidence to support the information. The motion to set aside the information is denied.
A ruling such as this can be viewed as potentially side stepping the issue and sending it to the trial or appeals process (presuming the defense will appeal).