Court Opinion

ID: 9705605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:13:34.790941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:12.905728
License: Public Domain

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Although I agree that in some situations the statutory scheme allows one member of the household to possess a controlled substance prescribed to another member of the household, the statutes are in fact far more restrictive than the majority perceives, and in this case, they clearly preclude the viability of a “household defense.” Thus, if the defense was *506not available, there was no need to call the pharmacist as a witness and no error in denying a continuance to secure the presence of that witness.
The first statute on which defendant relies — sec. 195.180.1 — provides that “[a] person may lawfully possess ... a controlled substance if such person obtained the controlled substance directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription ...” (emphasis added). Here, the defendant possessed the controlled substance neither “directly from” nor “pursuant to” a valid prescription. According to defendant’s own account of the matter, the controlled substance was not prescribed for him, but for his grandmother, and he possessed it not on behalf of his grandmother, but to take it from his brother, Ray. In fact, defendant testified that when he realized Ray was being arrested, he removed the pill from Ray’s cigarette package and placed it in his own pocket because he knew his brother had prior drug offenses, and he wanted to keep him out of trouble.
This same account also negates the possibility that the defendant is an “ultimate user,” as defined under section 195.010(40), whose conduct might be excused under section 195.030.4(3), which permits “ultimate users” to possess controlled substances. To restate section 195.010(40), an “ultimate user” is “[A] person who lawfully possesses a controlled substance ... for his own use or for the use of a member of his household....” There is no theory by which this defendant possessed the controlled substance for his own use, as in that instance even the majority would concede that defendant would not lawfully possess the controlled substance. Nor can it be said that defendant possessed the controlled substance for the use of a member of his household. Again, he took it from his brother’s cigarette pack so that his brother would not be caught with it, and certainly he did not possess it for the use of his grandmother because the grandmother gave it (albeit illegally) to defendant’s brother in the first place. Besides, defendant makes no claim that he possessed it for the use of his grandmother, his brother, or any other member of the household. Instead, defendant’s claim is simply this: “The only limitation on the prescription defense is that the defendant or a member of his or her household must have a prescription [for the controlled substance],” as if the use for which defendant possesses the controlled substance is irrelevant. This, too, appears to be the position of the majority.
As I read the statute, however, the mere fact that the controlled substance in question had been prescribed to a member of the household is not enough, by itself, to excuse possession by another member of the household. Under the statute, the defense must be that the defendant possessed the controlled substance “for the use of a member of [the] household.” Unfortunately, the majority makes no effort to apply this part of the statute to the facts of the case at hand, and instead justifies its decision by the fear that application of the statute would lead to harsh results. That fear, however, is based on factual contexts not present here — whether “a son could lawfully retrieve a prescription drug for his bedridden father,” or whether spouses could share and have joint control over a medicine cabinet without concern that one spouse “could be charged with illegally possessing a controlled substance prescribed to the other.” In both instances, of course, the possession of the controlled substance was clearly “for the use of a member of the household.” In this case, however, that element is missing, and there is no need for a jury determination because the defendant, in effect, conceded the issue.
*507For these reasons, I would affirm the conviction.