Case Title: State v. Blea

Citation: 20 Utah 2d 133, 434 P.2d 446

Docket Number: 

State: utah

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Date: 1967-11-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
20 Utah 2d 133 (1967) 434 P.2d 446 THE STATE OF UTAH, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. ISADORE BLEA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. No. 10754. Supreme Court of Utah. November 24, 1967. Stewart M. Hanson, Jr., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant. Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Leroy S. Axland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent. ELLETT, Justice: The defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for the crime of fraudulently obtaining a narcotic drug. The Information specified sub-section (4) of Section 58-13a-35, U.C.A. 1953, as the basis for the charge. That section reads as follows: The defendant prosecutes this appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury: (1) That the defendant would not be guilty if he did not know what drug the doctor would prescribe for him; (2) That the defendant must intend to cause the doctor and/or pharmacist to give the narcotic drug by reason of using a false name; (3) That the doctor and/or pharmacist must rely on the false name in giving and filling the prescription. He further claims that there was no evidence that Frank Rivera was not the true name of the defendant. To determine whether there is merit to his claim that those furnishing the drug pursuant to prescription must rely on the false name, it is necessary that we examine the statutes of this state. Section 58-13a-25, U.C.A. 1953, requires pharmacists to keep a record of all sales of narcotic drugs (except sales of drugs containing not more than one grain of codeine or its salts per ounce), showing the date of the sale, the name and address of the person to whom and for whose use the drug is sold, and the kind and quantity of the drug sold, and further requires that such record be kept for a period of two years after the date of the sale. Section 58-13a-34, U.C.A. 1953, provides that the records required to be kept by the pharmacist shall be open for inspection to "federal, state, county, and municipal officers, whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state or of the United States relating to narcotic drugs." It seems obvious that the purpose of the Legislature in enacting these statutes was to prevent illegal traffic in narcotic drugs and to regulate the sale and distribution thereof. Since the officers have access to all narcotic drug prescriptions, one who repeatedly received narcotic drugs would be discovered unless he used a false name. No claim is made that the statutes are invalid, and it seems that they are well within the proper exercise of the police power of the state. The contention as made by the defendant here was also made by the defendant in the case of State v. Lee, a Washington case reported at 62 Wash. 2d 288, 382 P.2d 491. The trial court dismissed the proceedings at the end of the State's case, and the issue was squarely before the court as to whether there had to be reliance upon a false name and/or address by the doctor or pharmacist prescribing a drug or filling a prescription. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court saying at page 494 of the Pacific Reporter: Another case bearing upon the principle involved is People v. Oviedo, 106 Cal. App. 2d 690, 235 P.2d 612. At page 613 the court said: The State of Nevada had a statute providing that "No person shall obtain or attempt to obtain a narcotic drug * * * by the use of a false name * * *." The case of Geurin v. State of Nevada, 73 Nev. 233, 315 P.2d 965, involved this statute, and the decision contains the following language: Narcotic addicts quickly learn what symptoms to feign in order to secure prescriptions containing narcotics; and if the prescription given by the doctor does not contain the narcotic drug desired, the addict simply does not have it filled and tries another doctor until he secures the desired drug. We believe the court properly instructed the jury and that it is not a necessary element of this offense for either the doctor or the pharmacist to rely upon the falsity of the name. The only intent required is the intent to secure the narcotic and to do so under a false name. Even if the law were as defendant contends, he is in poor position to complain of the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury thereon, for the reason that he did not request any such instructions nor did he take any exceptions to the failure of the court to so instruct. State v. Dubois, 98 Utah 234, 98 P.2d 354. The further claim of the defendant that it is not shown that Rivera was a false name is not well taken. Section 77-22-14, U.C.A. 1953, reads as follows: The defendant never claimed his name was Rivera nor requested any instructions from the court so as to make an issue of the falsity of his name. All during the trial he was referred to as Mr. Blea. The narcotic drug inspector for the State of Utah testified that he was acquainted with an individual known as Isadore Blea and pointed to the defendant as being that man. In the absence of any issue about the true name of the defendant, we think there was ample evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's true name was Isadore Blea and that he did obtain a narcotic drug by the use of a false name. The judgment is affirmed. J. CROCKETT, C.J., and CALLISTER, TUCKETT and HENRIOD, JJ., concur.