State v. Pountney (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 474
| Ohio | 2018Background
- Defendant Mark Pountney was indicted for, among other counts, aggravated possession of fentanyl; count alleged possession of at least 5 but less than 50 times the “bulk amount.”
- Ohio law (R.C. 2925.01(D)(1)(d)) defines “bulk amount” for Schedule II opiates as "twenty grams or five times the maximum daily dose in the usual dose range specified in a standard pharmaceutical reference manual."
- Pountney stipulated to possessing ten 3‑day transdermal fentanyl patches (each delivering 50 µg/hour); dispute centered solely on whether that quantity equaled five times the statutory “bulk amount.”
- State’s expert (pharmacist Paul Schad) relied on the AHFS (a board‑approved standard reference) but conceded AHFS does not specify a “usual dose range” or a “maximum daily dose in the usual dose range” for transdermal fentanyl.
- Schad derived a fentanyl “maximum daily dose” by converting the AHFS morphine usual‑dose range (10–30 mg every 4 hours → 180 mg/day) to an initial conservative transdermal fentanyl dose (50 µg/hour → 1,200 µg/day), then multiplied by five to get a bulk amount; court rejected that cross‑drug conversion.
- The Eighth District reversed the trial court, holding the State failed to prove the statutory dosage prong of the bulk‑amount definition; the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State may establish fentanyl’s “bulk amount” under R.C. 2925.01(D)(1)(d) by relying on morphine’s usual dose range and converting via AHFS conversion table | State: AHFS lacks a fentanyl usual‑dose range, so complying with statute may be accomplished by using morphine (prototype opiate) usual dose range and converting to fentanyl | Pountney: Statute requires the maximum daily dose in the usual dose range to be specified for fentanyl in a standard reference; cross‑drug conversion does not meet statutory requirement | Held: Rejected State’s approach — statute requires the maximum daily dose in the usual dose range to be specified for the specific drug in a standard pharmaceutical manual; AHFS does not so specify fentanyl, so State failed to prove bulk amount under dosage prong |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (definition of sufficiency review standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81, 998 N.E.2d 401 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; apply plain meaning)
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 861 N.E.2d 512 (primary goal of statutory construction is legislature’s intent as expressed in plain text)
- State v. Montgomery, 17 Ohio App.3d 258, 479 N.E.2d 904 (ways to prove maximum daily dose from a reference manual: stipulation, expert testimony about what the manual prescribes, or authenticated copy of the manual)
- State v. Huber, 187 Ohio App.3d 697, 933 N.E.2d 345 (held State failed to prove fentanyl maximum daily dose where reference manual did not specify it and no qualifying expert testimony or authenticated manual provision was offered)