mccoy v. state

8/7/2019 McCoy v. State

1/5

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RE-LEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PER-MANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED,IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAW-AL.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.

Cynthia Lynn McCOY, Appellant,v.

STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D09-5819.Dec. 21, 2010.

Background: Defendant was convicted in a jurytrial in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Mark H.Mahon , J., of trafficking in hydrocodone. Defend-ant appealed.

Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, Wol f , J.,held that:(1) as a matter of first impression, prescription de-

fense is available to innocent possessor of con-trolled substance who has a legally recognized reas-on for possession of drugs prescribed to another in-dividual;(2) issue of whether defendant was entitled to pre-scription defense was a jury question; and(3) failure to instruct jury on prescription defensewas fundamental error.

Reversed.

West Headnotes

[1] Controlled Substances 96H 0

96H Controlled SubstancesThe prescription defense is clearly available to

a defendant charged with possession of a controlledsubstance who has a valid prescription written dir-ectly on their behalf for the controlled substance in

their possession. West's F.S.A. 893.13 (6).


96H Controlled SubstancesPrescription defense is available to an innocent

possessor of a controlled substance who has a leg-ally recognized reason for the possession of con-trolled substance prescribed to another individual.West 's F.S.A. 893.13 (6), 465.003 (6); 893.04(2)(a), Fla. Sta t. (2008).

[3] Criminal Law 110 0

110 Criminal LawIn passing on a motion for judgment of acquit-

tal where a defendant has asserted an affirmativedefense, the proper test for appellate court is to de-termine, first, whether the defendant produced com-petent evidence of an affirmative defense and,second, whether the state has carried its burden of contradicting that evidence to the extent that a juryissue is made.


96H Controlled SubstancesIssue of whether defendant was entitled to pre-

scription defense in prosecution for trafficking inhydrocodone presented a jury question, thus pre-cluding judgment of acquittal for defendant, wheredefendant testified that she was holding pills asagent of her husband, who had prescription forpills, and state presented contrary evidence that pillbottle in defendant's possession contained two dif-ferent colors of pills, that bottle which had beenfilled the day before defendant's arrest with 60 pillscontained only 13 pills at the time of defendant's ar-rest, and that defendant told arresting officer thatshe had used some of the pills in the past. West'sF.S.A. 893.13 (6).


110 Criminal Law

Page 1--- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 5540946 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.), 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2876(Cite as: 2010 WL 5540946 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.))

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248094901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248094901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0153342401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS465.003&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS465.003&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0153342401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248094901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248094901&FindType=h


2/5

The failure to give a jury instruction on an af-firmative defense in a criminal case does not consti-tute per se fundamental error.


110 Criminal LawWhere a challenged jury instruction in a crim-

inal case involves an affirmative defense, as op-posed to an element of the crime, fundamental erroronly occurs where a jury instruction is so flawed asto deprive defendant claiming the defense of a fairtrial.


110 Criminal LawA defendant in a criminal case is deprived of a

fair trial if trial court's error in failing to instruct jury on affirmative defense divests the defendant of his or her sole, or primary, defense strategy and thatdefense is supported by evidence adduced at trialthat could not be characterized as weak.


110 Criminal LawFailure to instruct jury on defendant's prescrip-

tion defense constituted fundamental error, whereprescription defense was defendant's only defenseagainst charge of trafficking in hydrocodone, de-fendant presented evidence that she was holdingpills as agent for her husband, who had prescriptionfor pills, and prosecutor erroneously argued to jurythat defendant was not entitled to prescription de-fense. West's F.S.A. 893.13 (6).


110 Criminal Law

Where a challenged error in a criminal case in-volves jury instructions dealing with an affirmativedefense, the fundamental error doctrine should beapplied only in rare cases where a jurisdictional er-ror appears or where the interests of justice presenta compelling demand for its application.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.Mark H. Maho n, Judge.Nancy A. Daniels, PublicDefender, and Richard M. Summ a, Assistant PublicDefender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum , Attorney General, and Thomas H.Duffy , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, forAppellee.

WOLF , J.*1 Appellant challenges her conviction and

sentence for trafficking in hydrocodone, raisingthree issues regarding the prescription defense.We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal but reverse the conviction be-cause the failure to instruct the jury on theprescription defense constituted fundamental er-ror under the circumstances of this case.

Appellant was arrested and charged with traf-ficking in hydrocodone based on her actual posses-sion of a pill bottle, labeled as belonging to her hus-band, which contained Lorce t tablets. Appellantproceeded on the sole defense theory that she washolding the pills for her husband.

While the State argued appellant's possession

of the pills alone required her conviction, the Stateintroduced evidence which contradicted appellant'sdefense. Specifically, the officer testified the pillbottle contained two different colors of Lorce t tab-lets and the bottle, which apparently had been filledthe day before for 60 pills, contained only 13 pills.In addition, the arresting officer testified he askedappellant if she used the pills, and she respondedshe had used some of the pills in the past.

To explain these relevant inconsistencies, ap-pellant and appellant's husband testified at trial thehusband took Lorce t pills daily for his back prob-lems and collected the monthly Lorce t prescriptionstogether in one jar, which remained locked in a safein their home. The husband explained he wouldtake a small number of those pills and put them in aprescription bottle that his wife would carry for him


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248094901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0302809501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0257497801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297027401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297027401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0153342401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0153342401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297027401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0297027401&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0257497801&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0302809501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0248094901&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110


3/5

during the day because his work clothing lackedpockets. In addition, appellant testified she told theofficer she had taken the pills in the past becauseshe had previously been prescribed Lorce t by thesame physician.

I. Motion for Judgment of AcquittalAppellant first asserts the trial court erred in

denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, ar-guing the State had not rebutted her affirmative de-fense. The prescription defense is codified in sec-tion 893.13(6), Florida Statutes (2008) , andprovides in pertinent part:

(6)(a) It is unlawful for any person to be in actualor constructive possession of a controlled sub-stance unless such controlled substance was law-fully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to avalid prescription or order of a practitioner whileacting in the course of his or her professionalpractice....

[1] As reason dictates, the prescription defenseis clearly available to those who have a valid pre-scription written directly on their behalf for thepills in their possession. O'Hara v. State, 964 So.2d839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007 ) (extending the prescription

defense to prosecutions involving traffickingcharges); Smith v. State, 965 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2dDCA 2007 ). However, both appellant and the Stateconcede there is no case in Florida interpreting thevalidity of the prescription defense in situations inwhich the prescription is found on another individu-al who may have an innocent explanation for thepossession. FN*

*2 [2 ] In determining whether the defense isavailable in these situations, the language of thestatute combined with existing state pharmaceutical

laws are instructive. Specifically, the use of theterm lawfully obtained in the statute can be readas authorizing possession to only those individualswho have a legally recognized reason for the pos-session. Pursuant to section 465.003(6), Florid aStatutes (2008 ), pharmacies may lawfully dispensemedications to a consumer or his or her agent. Fur-

ther, a pharmacist may dispense a schedule III con-trolled substance when the pharmacist or phar-macist's agent has obtained satisfactory patient in-formation from the patient or the patient's agent. 893.04(2)(a), Fla. St at . (2008). Thus, schedule IIIcontrolled substances may be lawfully obtainedby an agent of the prescription holder who canprovide satisfactory patient information. Anagent is [o]ne who is authorized to act for or inplace of another. Black's Law Dictionary 68 (8thed.2004).

[3][4] He re, appellant asserted she was holdingher husband's pills on his behalf, and this allega-tion, if taken as true, established an agency rela-

tionship authorizing her possession of the pills pur-suant to Florida law. However, an inquiry into thecorrectness of a trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal does not end there. Specific-ally, [i]n passing on a motion for judgment of ac-quittal where a defendant has asserted an affirmat-ive defense, the proper test is to determine, first,whether the defendant produced competent evid-ence of an affirmative defense and, second, whetherthe state has carried its burden of contradicting thatevidence to the extent that a jury issue is made. B.D.K. v. State, 743 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1999 ) (quoting Williams v. State, 468 So.2d447, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985 )); see also Stinson v.State, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D570 (Fla. 1st DCAMar.13, 2009 ) (noting appellant retains the burdenof proving an affirmative defense and once proved,a motion for judgment of acquittal should be gran-ted if the State cannot overcome the defensethrough rebuttal or inference in its case in chief).

Appellant and her husband's testimonyprovided competent, substantial evidence support-ing the prescription defense. However, the Statepresented evidence (including appellant's statementto the officer that she took the pills and the ques-tionable nature in which the pills were bottled)which contradicted that innocent explanation, creat-ing a jury question as to appellant's guilt. Accord-ingly, the trial court did not err in denying the mo-


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BDhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2013208720http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2013208720http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2013208720http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2012920147http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2012920147http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2012920147http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS465.003&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS465.003&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1999236195&ReferencePosition=1157http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1999236195&ReferencePosition=1157http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1999236195&ReferencePosition=1157http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985123754&ReferencePosition=449http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985123754&ReferencePosition=449http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985123754&ReferencePosition=449http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1303&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2018332587http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985123754&ReferencePosition=449http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985123754&ReferencePosition=449http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985123754&ReferencePosition=449http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1999236195&ReferencePosition=1157http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1999236195&ReferencePosition=1157http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1999236195&ReferencePosition=1157http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.04&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS465.003&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS465.003&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2012920147http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2012920147http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2012920147http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2013208720http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2013208720http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2013208720http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS893.13&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=ML&DocName=I37ea5a45475111db9765f9243f53508a&FindType=BD


4/5

tion for judgment of acquittal.

II. Jury Instructions and Fundamental ErrorIn her second issue, appellant asserts funda-

mental error occurred when the jury was not in-structed on the prescription defense. Appellant as-serts this error was compounded by the prosecutor'srepeated statements in closing argument informingthe jury there was no defense to appellant's posses-sion of the pills.

*3 [5][6][7] In Martinez v. State, 981 So.2 d449, 455 (Fla.200 8) , the supreme court held thefailure to give a jury instruction on an affirmativedefense would not constitute per se fundamental er-ror. Instead, [w]here the challenged jury instruc-tion involves an affirmative defense, as opposed toan element of the crime, fundamental error only oc-curs where a jury instruction is so flawed as to de-prive defendants claiming the defense ... of a fairtrial. Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 ,108 (Fla.1988 )). A defendant is deprived of a fairtrial if the error divests the defendant of his or hersole, or ... primary, defense strategy and that de-fense is supported by evidence adduced at trial thatcould not be characterized as weak. Id. at 455-57 .See also Richards v. State, 39 So.3d 431, 35 Fla. L.

Weekly D1444 (Fla. 2d DCA June 30, 2010 ).

[8] In the underlying case, appellant and appel-lant's husband presented the prescription defensefor her possession. While the State introduced con-tradictory evidence refuting the defense, the jurywas never instructed they had a choice to accept ap-pellant's defense. In fact, not only was the jury nottold of the defense, but the prosecutor informed the jury:

They want you to say, so what, they're her hus-

band's pills, of course she can have them, but youknow what you won't hear, when the Judge readsyou the law, you won't hear that she had a right tohave them because, after all, Hydrocodone is acontrolled substance.

....

You will not hear from the judge that it is a de-fense for this defendant to have the pills becauseher husband has a prescription. You will not hearthat. If you do not hear that, then there is no de-fense in the law for this defendant to have thepills.

Further compounding the error, the prosecutorexplained to the jury anyone can be charged withtrafficking for having pills in their possession.Based on the foregoing, there is no way of knowingif the jury would have acquitted appellant had itknown there existed a prescription defense and ithad the option to accept her affirmative defense.

[9] We recognize that where the challenged er-ror involves jury instructions dealing with an af-firmative defense, the fundamental error doctrine should be applied only in rare cases where a juris-dictional error appears or where the interests of justice present a compelling demand for its applica-tion. Martinez, 981 So.2d at 45 5 (quoting Smith ,521 So.2d at 108 ). However, because the defenseconstituted appellant's only defense to the chargeand there was substantial, albeit conflicting, evid-ence concerning the defense along with the egre-giously incorrect argument from the prosecutor re-

garding the defense, this is one of those rare casesin which fundamental error has occurred. Accord-ingly, we reverse and find no need to reach appel-lant's third issue asserting ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to re-quest the prescription defense instruction.

*4 REVERSED.

ROBERTS and ROWE , JJ., Concur.

FN* Several states with statutory languagesimilar to Florida have held the prescrip-tion defense is applicable to those otherthan the prescription holder. See State v.Waters, 2009 --- Ohio ---- 6151 (OhioApp. 11th Dist. Nov. 20, 2009)(recognizing the prescription defense couldinclude possessing pills for another but


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2015297153http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2015297153http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3926&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2022422170http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3926&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2022422170http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3926&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2022422170http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0372464101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0426409501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0426409501&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0372464101&FindType=hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3926&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2022422170http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3926&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2022422170http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3926&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2022422170http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2015297153http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2015297153http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1988014152&ReferencePosition=108http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=735&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2015297153&ReferencePosition=455


5/5

finding facts of the case did not warrantthe defense); State v. Miller, 193 P.3d 9 2(Utah 2008 ) (finding temporary possessionof pills belonging to another can constituteinnocent possession); State v. Blocker, 133S.W.3d 502, 505-06 (Mo.20 04) (findingMissouri statute authorized possession of pills by a family member).

Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2010.McCoy v. State--- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 5540946 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.),35 Fla. L. Weekly D2876

END OF DOCUMENT


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4645&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2016864603http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4645&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2016864603http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4645&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2016864603http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4644&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2004462193&ReferencePosition=505http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4644&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2004462193&ReferencePosition=505http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4644&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2004462193&ReferencePosition=505http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4644&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2004462193&ReferencePosition=505http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4644&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2004462193&ReferencePosition=505http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4644&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2004462193&ReferencePosition=505http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4645&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2016864603http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4645&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2016864603http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=4645&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2016864603

mccoy v. state

Documents