Ramirez v. State
125 So. 3d 171
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Ramirez was convicted after a jury trial of trafficking in hydrocodone and possession of cocaine with intent to sell; this court reverses the trafficking conviction for fundamental error due to failure to instruct on a prescription defense and remands for a new trial; possession of cocaine with intent to sell conviction remains affirmed.
- SWAT officers entered Ramirez’s mother’s home with a warrant and found Ramirez and his girlfriend sleeping; a pill bottle prescribed to Ramirez’s mother and fourteen pills were found on a nightstand near Ramirez; the bottle had been filled six months earlier and the mother had a valid prescription.
- In a second room, officers found cocaine, a scale with cocaine residue, baking soda, and mail addressed to Ramirez; Ramirez claimed the pills were his for safekeeping and not for sale; the defense asserted the pills were left by Ramirez’s mother and that he possessed them only temporarily.
- Ramirez testified that he moved into the mother’s home due to a power bill issue and took the pills to safeguard them until his mother returned; the state’s evidence tended to contradict him, while the defense argued Ramirez lacked intent to traffic.
- During closing, the prosecutor framed the trafficking elements as four required elements and argued possession by Ramirez; the jury later asked whether conviction was required if the four elements were proved, signaling perceived unfairness in the law given the lack of a prescription defense instruction.
- The trial court did not instruct on any prescription defense, and defense counsel did not timely request such an instruction; constitutional and statutory authorities recognize a prescription defense for possession with intent to traffic when a valid prescription is involved; the court deemed this omission fundamental and reversible, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct on prescription defense | Ramirez’s primary defense was the prescription defense | Trial court did not hear the defense; no instruction given | Fundamental error; reversible error; remand for new trial |
| Prescription defense as agent of holder | Mother’s pills held by Ramirez under implied authority to safeguard | No explicit agency; insufficient instruction | Prescription defense available to agent; jury could have found immunity |
| Prosecutor's closing statements | Statements were improper and prejudicial | Not enough to constitute fundamental error | Not fundamental error; still affirmed in part and reversed in part |
| Jury's question about conviction necessity | Question indicated missing legal guidance | No instruction requested | Supports fundamental error finding; supports remand |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. State, 56 So.3d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (prescription defense as a complete defense to trafficking and requires jury instruction)
- Ayotte v. State, 67 So.3d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (sole theory of innocence; failure to acknowledge prescription exception reversible)
- Latona v. State, 75 So.3d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (prescription defense extends to agent holding pills for patient)
- Delva v. State, 575 So.2d 643 (Fla.1991) (contemporaneous objection rule; fundamental error when defense omitted)
- Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 (Fla.1988) (fundamental error standard for missing defense instruction)
- O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839 (Fla.2d DCA 2007) (prescription defense recognized as defense to trafficking)
- Wagner v. State, 88 So.3d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (context on prescription defense)
- Glovacz v. State, 60 So.3d 423 (Fla.1st DCA 2011) (prescription defense where holder’s pills in purse)
- Martinez v. State, 981 So.2d 449 (Fla.2008) (affirmative defense concept and jury instruction relevance)
- Tillman v. State, 647 So.2d 1015 (Fla.4th DCA 1994) (improper corroboration statements prejudicial)
- Landry v. State, 620 So.2d 1099 (Fla.4th DCA 1993) (evidentiary impact on jury consideration)