« Gay v. State (2nd District Court of Appeals, May 15th, 2014) | Main | Teamer v. State (1st District Court of Appeals December 21st, 2012.) »

Ramirez, v. State(1st District Court of Appeals, January 16, 2013). 

This case explains what is called the "Prescription Defense" in trafficking and possession of prescription medication cases.  Specifically, the charge of trafficking may be proven through possession of a certain amount of a controlled substance.  BUT, an affirmative prescription defense is ... "available to those who have a valid prescription written directly on their behalf for the pills in their possession." McCoy v. State, 56 So.3d 37, 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citations omitted). Section 893.13(6)(a) states:

It is unlawful for any person to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance unless such controlled substance was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice or to be in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.

A valid prescription is a complete defense to trafficking and a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense.” (citing O'Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007))).  Moreover, the prescription defense is not limited to the person holding a valid prescription, but may also be asserted by “any individual authorized by the prescription holder to hold the medications on his or her behalf.” State v. Latona, 75 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing McCoy, 56 So.3d at 39).

This is a powerful defense.  However, the burden of proving this defense rest solely with the Defendant through his attorney.  This is why it is important to have an experienced criminal attorney.