Wagner v. State
88 So. 3d 250
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wagner was convicted of trafficking in Oxycodone, possession of Xanax, withholding information from a practitioner, and two fraud counts.
- The dispute centers on a jury instruction adding the phrase “for a lawful purpose” to the prescription defense under section 893.13(6)(a).
- Wagner obtained prescriptions from two doctors in July–August 2007; the State argued a July 31 prescription from Dr. Doldan made the August 15 prescription illegal.
- Molly Herrera testified that she wrote fraudulent prescriptions for Wagner and Wagner knew they were fraudulent; all pills found belonged to Dr. Terrero’s prescriptions, not Dr. Doldan’s.
- Wagner requested a valid prescription instruction; the court gave a modified instruction and added “for a lawful purpose,” which the State emphasized in closing.
- The trial court adjudicated Wagner guilty; on appeal, the court held the misstatement of law was reversible as to the trafficking/possession counts but not to the withholding-from-a-practitioner count, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction misstated the law | Wagner argues the instruction misstate the law by adding 'for a lawful purpose'. | State argues the instruction was correct and supported by statute. | Reversed on the erroneous instruction; harmless as to the withholding count. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying judgments of acquittal | Wagner contends the evidence did not prove valid prescription beyond reasonable doubt. | State contends sufficient evidence supported conviction. | Affirmed as to the denial for the withholding count; reversed for new trial on the trafficking/possession-related issues due to the wrong instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (valid prescription as a defense to trafficking/possession)
- Knipp v. State, 67 So.3d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (prescription defense survives despite doctor-shopping statute)
- Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2008) (plain-language interpretation; no look-beyond statute)
- Williams v. State, 982 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (fundamental error when an incorrect instruction negates defense)
- Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (misleading jury instructions require reversal when defense is negated)