Case Title: Ex Parte Evers

Citation: 434 So. 2d 813

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1983-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
434 So. 2d 813 (1983)
Ex parte H. Ray EVERS.
(Re: H. Ray Evers v. State of Alabama.)
81-744.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 10, 1983.
Rehearing Denied July 8, 1983.
*814 L. Drew Redden and William N. Clark of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, and John A. Henig, Jr., Montgomery, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and George Hardesty, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
EMBRY, Justice.
Dr. H. Ray Evers was indicted on two counts of "selling, furnishing, or giving away" amphetamines in violation of § 20-2-70(a), Code 1975. That statute provides in pertinent part:
The jury found him guilty on both counts and the trial court set sentence at five years' imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed and this appeal followed.
The facts are summarized in the State's brief:
The court of appeals held that § 20-2-70(a) applies to licensed physicians:
We do not disagree with that conclusion. However, that court erred by misstating the issue presented by Dr. Evers on appeal. Evers does not contend a physician could not be charged and convicted of the illegal possession, sale, or furnishing of controlled substances. Rather, the issue raised by Evers at trial and on appeal is whether § 20-2-70(a) is applicable to a licensed physician writing a prescription which is within the scope of his registration.
Respondent contends the words "sell, furnish, and give away" were intended by the Legislature to have a broad, general application. Petitioner contends that, had the Legislature intended that the statute proscribe the writing of a prescription by a physician for other than a legitimate medical purpose, it would have used a more descriptive word such as "dispense" or "prescribe" to define the prohibited act. We agree.
Well settled rules for construction of criminal statutes guide our determination of this issue. In United States v. Resnick, 299 U.S. 207, 57 S. Ct. 126, 81 L. Ed. 127 (1936), the United States Supreme Court considered the applicability of a statute making a misdemeanor the sale of vegetable hampers not complying with certain dimension specifications. That Court held that, because hampers of the size manufactured by defendant were not mentioned in the Act, his conduct could not be made criminal:
299 U.S.  at 209, 57 S. Ct.  at 127. Accord, Fuller v. State, 257 Ala. 502, 60 So. 2d 202, 205 (1952); State v. Bradford, 368 So. 2d 317, 320 (Ala.Cr.App.1979).
In State v. Bradford, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently determined a statute which provides that it is unlawful for practitioners of dentistry and veterinary medicine to prescribe certain drugs could not be construed as applicable to physicians. That court stated:
368 So. 2d  at 320.
The appellate court quoted from Young v. State, 58 Ala. 358 (1877):
368 So. 2d  at 320.
Dr. Evers was convicted of "selling, furnishing, or giving away" amphetamines. We do not think those terms sufficiently describe the action of a physician prescribing a controlled substance within the scope of his registration. Illustrative of this conclusion is testimony on cross examination *817 by the "victim," pharmacist Johnny Wayne Coley:
We think it is clear Dr. Evers did not commit an act violative of § 20-2-70(a) as its terms are "generally or popularly" defined.
Further, it is well established that criminal statutes should not be "extended by construction." Locklear v. State, 50 Ala. App. 679, 282 So. 2d 116 (1973). The trial court incorporated part of the language from § 13A-2-22, Code 1975, in its oral charge to the jury. That statute provides that a person is:
Section 13A-2-22 is a part of the new Alabama Criminal Code. It did not go into effect until 1 January 1980, almost 10 years after the Controlled Substances Act took effect. Obviously, at the time § 20-2-70(a) was enacted it was meant to stand on its own. Had the trial court not included the language of § 13A-2-22, the jury may well have determined that Dr. Evers's conduct did not constitute "selling, furnishing, or giving away" controlled substances. An attempt to enlarge the scope of § 20-2-70(a) via such strained construction will not be allowed.
For the above reasons we find the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding § 20-2-70(a) applicable to a licensed physician writing a prescription which is within the scope of his registration. Therefore, we must reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 434 So. 2d 804, and remand this case to that court for action by it consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., recused.