McCoy v. State
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19939
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellant was convicted of trafficking in hydrocodone based on actual possession of a pill bottle labeled as her husband’s.
- Defense theory: Appellant held the pills for her husband; husband testified to daily Lorcet use and that pills were kept in a single jar in a safe.
- State’s evidence suggested adulterated pills and inconsistent bottle contents; officer testimony included appellant’s admission of past pill use.
- The defense argued agency-like possession under Florida law, with pills lawfully obtained for the husband via a prescription.
- The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal, and the jury was not instructed on the prescription defense.
- On appeal, the court reversed on the conviction due to fundamental error from the missing prescription-defense instruction, but affirmed denial of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of judgment of acquittal was correct given the prescription defense | Appellant contends the defense was not refuted. | State argues evidence conflicted with defense and created a jury question. | Affirmed denial of judgment of acquittal. |
| Whether failure to instruct on the prescription defense constitutes fundamental error | Appellant asserts the defense should have been instructed and prosecutors attacked it. | State maintained no per se fundamental error and evidence allowed a jury ruling without the instruction. | Fundamental error; reversal of conviction. |
| Whether the third issue (ineffective assistance) is addressed given reversal | Appellant asserts ineffective assistance for failure to request instruction. | State argues issue is separate and preserved. | Not reached due to reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (prescription defense extended to trafficking cases)
- Smith v. State, 965 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (prescription defense extended to trafficking context)
- Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2008) (failure to give affirmative-defense instruction not per se fundamental error)
- Stinson v. State, — (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (affirmative defense burden on defendant remains; rare fundamental-error cases)
- Richards v. State, 39 So.3d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (affirmative defense and jury instruction considerations)
- B.D.K. v. State, 743 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (test for judgment of acquittal when affirmative defenses are raised)