The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law and the Attorney General Alliance (AGA) have partnered to launch a new online concentration in Cannabis Law and Regulation (CLR), addressing the need for accredited legal training in the rapidly growing U.S. intrastate cannabis market.

As the national cannabis market and workforce continues to mature, professionals need education to navigate the complex web of conflicting laws, regulations and policies. The program was designed to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of cannabis laws and regulations in the U.S., and to prepare them for careers in private and public entities in this emerging industry.

“The partnership between the University of Arizona Law and the AGA represents a ground-breaking initiative in providing legal training for the rapidly expanding field of cannabis law and regulation,” said Dean Miller. “This new offering builds off of our history and commitment to providing high-quality online legal education. This innovative program will equip students with a valuable skillset that can contribute to their current job, and will be helpful throughout their career.”

Courses have begun to be offered to new and current students. More information about the Cannabis Law and Regulation online concentration program and how to apply can be found online.

For the full story, see here.

In November, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals held oral arguments during a special court session at the college of law.

During the visit, which was hosted by the William H. Rehnquist Center, the court heard oral arguments in one civil and one criminal matter:

Melanie Goldstein v. MWM Vicsdale Magic, LLC, Case No. 2 CA-CV 2023-0021

This civil action arises from the sale of a renovated but water-damaged home in Scottsdale. MWM Vicsdale Magic and its principal, Victor Gojcaj, appeal from the trial court’s judgment affirming a jury verdict in favor of the purchaser, Goldstein. Appellants challenge a negative inference instruction the trial court provided to the jury after Gojcaj failed to appear for trial as ordered. They also contend the jury’s award of $1,000,000 punitive damages is excessive and unconstitutional in a case involving $45,048 in compensatory damages.  

In its decision issued after oral argument, the court upheld the judgment of the trial court.

State of Arizona v. Larry Eugene Bagby, Case No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0094 

Bagby appeals his aggravated assault conviction. He argues the trial court improperly gave a flight instruction, as well as a limiting instruction that directed the jury to consider evidence of the victim’s cocaine use only for how it affected her ability to perceive and recall events. Bagby also contends that insufficient evidence supported the jury’s domestic-violence finding and that evidence of his prior dangerous-felony conviction was improperly authenticated at a priors trial.

The court affirmed Bagby’s conviction and sentence.