STEVEN YOUNG v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Raker, Dec. 1, 2017,
Evidence – CDS prescriptions – Introducing “valid prescriptions” as a statutory defense to possession of CDS, when properly authenticated, is not hearsay.
Just… no. No. Not at all. Nope.
CR 5-601 makes it illegal to “possess or administer to another a controlled dangerous substance, unless obtained directly or by prescription or order from an authorized provider acting in the course of professional practice;”
The opinion acts like a single piece of paper bridges the entire gap.
A prescription offered to prove:
1) D had a physical piece of paper (prescription) for X CDS
2) Someone granted that prescription to D for X CDS
3) That person was a “an authorized provider”
4) That person was “acting in the course of professional practice”
seems to be at least 1/2 hearsay
It’s not just authentication that’s missing here. It’s the “authorized provider,” “in the course of professional practice,” and “granting D right to CDS” that I take issue with. #1 isn’t really anything. And it’s probable that #2 isn’t hearsay (no assertion). But 3 and 4 are definitely hearsay if used for that purpose.
So unless the prescription can ONLY be considered for mens rea purposes (I did not knowingly obtain CDS without a valid prescription) AND/OR as evidence that a piece of paper that looks like a prescription exists… I don’t see how it’s not hearsay
So… the existence of a prescription is only a piece of that defense
Another problem with Young – existence of a prescription is NOT a defense to PWID
Ok, enough ranting… but I’m going to refrain from quoting the “law” in this opinion at length, since I predict some significant differentiation in the future.
Facts:
In 2014, Det. Larbi and his squad executed a search warrant on Marbourne Ave. in Lakeland.
Young was the target of the warrant and was arrested outside of the residence. He was mirandized and returned to the residence for execution of the warrant.
Once inside, he told the officers that he lived there and that he had drugs in his bedroom. In that bedroom, Detective Larbi found 32 pills of methadone, 7 pills of Xanax, and 3.5 grams of heroin. Detective Larbi also discovered in a kitchen cabinet downstairs 3 plastic bags each containing 100 oxycodone pills, another plastic bag containing 42 oxycodone pills, and $1,498 cash. Young admitted that he sometimes sold drugs.
Prior to trial, Young tried to bring in “valid prescriptions for Methadone, Xanax (alprazolam), and Percocet (a mixture of oxycodone and acetaminophen).”
However, the trial court rejected these prescriptions as hearsay and they were not allowed into evidence.
Young was convicted.
On appeal, Young argued that the prescriptions were not hearsay because they were being used as a legal defense.
Held:
The Court of Special Appeals agreed with Young. Because criminal law makes it illegal to possess CDS “unless obtained directly or by prescription,” its existence is not hearsay when offered only to show its existence.