Court Opinion

ID: 9851437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:12:41.609259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:55.920829
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority’s determination that OCGA § 16-13-41 (h) is not unconstitutionally vague, I do not agree with its definition of the term “issuance” or its assessment of the types of conduct covered by the statute. To the contrary, I believe that the act for which Dr. Raber has been charged in this case, namely giving a signed prescription pad to his nurse, is not covered under OCGA § 16-13-41 (h) by the statute’s clear and unambiguous terms. As a result, I must respectfully dissent.
Appellate courts have a duty to construe a statute in a manner which upholds it as constitutional whenever possible. See, e.g., Garner v. Harrison, 260 Ga. 866, 869 (2) (400 SE2d 925) (1991). If it is clear what a statute, as a whole, prohibits, that statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Rozier v. State, 259 Ga. 399 (383 SE2d 113) (1989). As discussed by Presiding Justice Hunstein in her separate dissent, OCGA § 16-13-41 (h) has a clear meaning supported by the intent of the Legislature. Presiding Justice Hunstein correctly finds that “issuance of a prescription form reflects that the practitioner has given the form to the ultimate user, i.e., the person who has been enabled by the issuance of the form to obtain controlled substances.” In light of this clear definition, I believe that persons of common intelligence can ascertain those acts prohibited under the statute, and the statute, therefore, is not unconstitutionally vague. See, e.g., State v. Old South Amusements, Inc., 275 Ga. 274 (1) (564 SE2d 710) (2002) (legislature not required to draft statutes with mathematical precision). Furthermore, based on this clear definition, the acts for which the defendant is presently charged are not covered by the statute, as the prescription form was given to a trusted nurse, not the ultimate user.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Sears joins in this dissent.
*260Decided March 23, 2009 —
Reconsideration denied April 10, 2009.
Pate & Brody, Page A. Pate, for appellant.
Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Robert W. Lavender, District Attorney, for appellee.