State Of Washington v. Mary Yokel, 196 Wash. App. 424

On Feb. 15, 2015 Officer found Mary Yokel, arrested her on an outstanding warrant, and searched her; one Vicodin (hydrocodone) pill was found in her pocket. Prosecutor charged Yokel with possession of a controlled substance (other charge acquitted).
Yokel sought to show the pill came from her 16-year-old daughter’s valid Vicodin prescription — she said she removed two pills from the bottle, gave one to her daughter, and kept one in her pocket after deciding the daughter should not take two.
Trial court granted the State’s motion in limine excluding any evidence of the daughter’s prescription and refused Yokel’s proposed jury instruction that possession is lawful if obtained “directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription.”
Jury convicted Yokel of one count of possession (hydrocodone). Yokel appealed, arguing (1) the court misinterpreted former RCW 69.50.4013(1) by ruling the prescription defense does not cover third‑party/household prescriptions; and (2) exclusion of the daughter’s prescription evidence and refusing the instruction violated her right to present a defense.
The Court of Appeals considered whether former RCW 69.50.4013(1) provides an affirmative defense to an “ultimate user” possessing a household member’s valid prescription, analyzed statutory language and definitions (including the Act’s definition of “ultimate user”), and examined decisions from other jurisdictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether former RCW 69.50.4013(1) covers possession "pursuant to" a third‑party/household member’s valid prescription	The statutory affirmative defense applies only to the prescription holder (not to possession pursuant to another’s prescription)	Yokel: the phrase “pursuant to a valid prescription” and the Act’s definition of “ultimate user” allow possession for household members’ prescriptions	Court: statute includes an ultimate‑user defense — possession pursuant to a household member’s valid prescription is lawful; trial court misinterpreted the statute
Whether excluding evidence of the daughter’s prescription and refusing the jury instruction violated Yokel’s right to present a defense	State: exclusion was proper under the facts; the proposed instruction was not applicable	Yokel: exclusion and refusal deprived her of the ability to present the lawful‑prescription/ultimate‑user defense	Court: exclusion and refusal violated constitutional right to present a defense; conviction reversed and case remanded for new trial

State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571 (review of statutory interpretation) (court reviews statutes de novo and looks to legislative intent)
State v. Contreras, 124 Wn.2d 741 (interpretive principle that differing statutory phrases carry different meanings)
State v. Ramirez, 62 Wn. App. 301 (construing the Uniform Controlled Substances Act with reference to other states)
State v. Blocker, 133 S.W.3d 502 (Mo. 2004) (holding ultimate‑user defense applies to household prescriptions to avoid absurd results)
State v. Gallardo, 871 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa Ct. App.) (adopting Blocker reasoning; recognizing exception for possession pursuant to a valid prescription)
State v. Miller, 193 P.3d 92 (Utah 2008) (noting temporary possession of another’s pills can be innocent possession)