Opinion ID: 1986358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lawful Possession

Text: The primary rule of statutory construction is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute. State v. Grubb, 120 S.W.3d 737, 739 (Mo. banc 2003). Each word or phrase in a statute must be given meaning if possible. Related statutes are also relevant to further clarify the meaning of a statute. State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 80 (Mo. banc 1999). If the plain language of statute creates an ambiguity, the statute will be construed to avoid unreasonable or absurd results. In re Beyersdorfer, 59 S.W.3d 523, 526 (Mo. banc 2001). Section 195.180.1 provides, in relevant part, that: A person may lawfully possess or have under his control a controlled substance if such person obtained the controlled substance directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of a practitioner's professional practice or except as otherwise authorized by section 195.005 to 195.425. (Emphasis added). The statute provides that a person can lawfully possess or control a controlled substance if it is obtained directly from or pursuant to a valid prescription. The use of different phrases implies that each has a different meaning. Although neither phrase is statutorily defined, the plain meaning of the phrase directly from a valid prescription refers to possession of a controlled substance by the prescription holder. What constitutes lawful possession pursuant to a valid prescription is not clear. Related statutes indicate that lawful possession pursuant to a valid prescription can, in some circumstances, include the other members of the prescription holder's household. Section 195.010(11) allows drugs to be dispensed to an ultimate user pursuant to a prescription. Section 195.010(40) defines an ultimate user as: [A] person who lawfully possesses a controlled substance or an imitation controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for administering to an animal owned by him or a member of his household. (Emphasis added). The definition of ultimate user indicates that the General Assembly intended to allow a household member to possess or control the prescriptions of another household member. However, the scope of lawful possession is limited by the prescription. Once a person has lawful possession, it remains lawful only so long as the prescribed substance is for his own use or for the use of member of his household. Section 195.010(40). For instance, a son could lawfully retrieve a prescription drug for his bedridden father. Lawful possession would cease if the son used the drug himself or transferred it for use by another person. If household members could not lawfully possess or control substances prescribed to others in the household, the results would be absurd. For instance, if spouses share and have joint control over a medicine cabinet, the spouse without the prescription could be charged with illegally possessing a controlled substance prescribed to the other. That would be the case if one spouse stored an illegal narcotic, such as methamphetamine, in a shared cabinet. See, State v. Hall, 687 S.W.2d 924 (Mo.App.1985) (court affirmed wife's conviction for possession of marijuana found in a home she shared with her husband because the drugs were found on a dresser in defendant's bedroom). However, by including household members among those who may lawfully possess or control substances prescribed to another household member, the General Assembly exempted household members from prosecution for prescription drugs because each household member's possession or control arises pursuant to a prescription.