Court Opinion

ID: 9748272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:58:38.647505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:33.894413
License: Public Domain

CUNNINGHAM, Justice,
concurring:
I concur with the majority; however, I write separately to address the trial court’s assertion that the last paragraph of the instruction was “an adequate avenue for arguing his innocent possession defense.” It does not. Had it been, I might have been persuaded that it was harmless error.
The last paragraph of the instruction requires that Appellant possess the illegal drug “with the intent to sell, distribute, or dispense it to another person.” (emphasis added). There is no problem with criminal liability as to selling. Nor is there a difficulty with dispensing being illegal since it is defined as delivery to an “ultimate user.” KRS 218A.010(8). However, distribute means “to deliver other than by administering or dispensing.” KRS 218A.010(10). This would include giving it to the law enforcement officer, which would be exempt of criminal liability under KRS 218A.220.
Therefore, on the face of the instructions themselves, Appellant could have been convicted of something which was not illegal — that is, distribution. This made the giving of the exemption instruction absolutely critical. Therefore, it was not harmless, nor was there an “adequate avenue for arguing his innocent possession defense.”