Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/423-u-s-122-606831194
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 01:24:50
Document Index: 425102870

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 822', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 842', '§ 842', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

423 U.S. 122 (1975), 74-759, United States v. Moore - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606831194
423 U.S. 122 (1975), 74-759, United States v. Moore
Docket Nº: No. 74-759
Citation: 423 U.S. 122, 96 S.Ct. 335, 46 L.Ed.2d 333
Party Name: United States v. Moore
Case Date: December 09, 1975
423 U.S. 122 (1975)
96 S.Ct. 335, 46 L.Ed.2d 333
Held: Registered physicians can be prosecuted under § 841 when, as here, their activities fall outside the usual course of professional practice. Pp. 131-145.
(a) Only the lawful acts of registrants under the CSA are exempted from prosecution under § 841. That section, by its terms, reaches "any person," and does not exempt (as it could have) "all registrants" or "all persons registered under the Act." The language of the qualified authorization of § 822(b), which authorizes registrants to possess, distribute, or dispense controlled substances to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with other CSA provisions, and which was added merely to ensure that persons engaged in lawful activities could not be prosecuted, cannot be fairly read to support the view that all activities of registered physicians are beyond the reach of § 841 simply because of their status. Pp. 131-133.
penalty systems, with nonregistrants to be punished under § 841 and registrants under §§ 842 and 843, the fact that the term "registrants" is used in some subsections of §§ 842 and 843, but not in § 841, being of limited significance. Moreover, the legislative history indicates that Congress was concerned with the nature of the drug transaction, rather than with the defendant's status. Pp. 133-135.
[96 S.Ct. 337] (e) Congress was concerned that the drug laws not impede legitimate research, and that physicians be allowed reasonable discretion in treating patients, but it did not intend to exempt from serious criminal penalties those acts by physicians that go beyond the limits of approved professional practice. Pp. 143-145.
(f) Where the statutory purpose is clear, the canon of strict construction of criminal statutes favoring the accused will be satisfied if the words of the statute are "given their fair meaning in accord with the manifest intent of the lawmakers." United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 25-26. P. 145.
Dr. Moore was charged, in a 639-count indictment, with the knowing and unlawful distribution and dispensation of methadone (Dolophine), a Schedule II controlled substance,1 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). That subsection provides:
(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or
possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance. . . .
The indictment covered a 5 1/2-month period from late August, 1971, to early February, 1972. It was reduced before trial to 40 counts, and the jury convicted respondent on 22 counts. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of five to 15 years' imprisonment on 14 counts, and to concurrent terms of 10 to 30 years on the remaining eight counts. The second set of sentences was to be consecutive with the first. Fines totaling $150,000 were also imposed.2
Methadone is an addictive drug used in the treatment of heroin addicts. If taken without controls it can, like heroin, create euphoric "highs," but, if properly administered, it eliminates the addict's craving for heroin without providing a "high." The two principal methods of treating heroin addicts with methadone are "detoxification" and "maintenance." Under a maintenance program, the addict is given a fixed dose once a day for an indefinite period to [96 S.Ct. 338] keep him from using heroin. In detoxification, the addict is given a large dose of methadone during the first few days of treatment to keep him free of withdrawal symptoms. Then the dose is gradually reduced until total abstinence is reached.
which appointments were never scheduled -- no physical examination was performed and the patient again received a prescription for whatever quantity he requested. Accurate records were not kept, and in some cases the quantity prescribed was not recorded. There was no supervision of the administration of the drug. Dr. Moore's instructions consisted entirely of a label on the drugs reading: "Take as directed for detoxification." Some patients used the tablets to get "high"; others sold them or gave them to friends or relatives. Several patients testified that their use of methadone increased dramatically while they were under respondent's care.3
The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, assumed that respondent acted wrongfully but held that he could not be prosecuted under § 841.4 164 U.S.App.D.C.
319, [96 S.Ct. 339] 505 F.2d 426 (1974). The court found that Congress intended to subject registered physicians to prosecution...