Williams v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 341

Appellant Williams possessed three oxycodone/acetaminophen pills, a Schedule II drug.
Pills’ shape, color, and markings matched those of a pharmaceutical prescription.
Appellant did not contest possession but moved to dismiss, arguing Code §18.2-263 unconstitutional.
Commonwealth argued the valid prescription defense is affirmative, not an element; trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, Williams challenges vagueness and due process as to burden shifting; court addresses constitutionality and sufficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vagueness of §18.2-263	Williams argues lack of proof standard renders statute vague	Commonwealth contends no ruling below, issue waived	Waived; not reviewable on appeal
Due process burden shifting	§18.2-263 shifts burden to prove valid prescription onto defendant	Statute is valid; prosecution bears burden to prove offense beyond reasonable doubt	Constitutional; burden does not shift to appellant
Sufficiency without §18.2-263	Without §18.2-263, Commonwealth failed to prove no valid prescription	Constitutionality resolves sufficiency; conviction affirmed under §18.2-250	Conviction affirmed; §18.2-263 valid and dispositive

Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1977) (burden-shifting permissible where it does not determine essential offense element)
Stillwell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 214 (Va. 1978) (drug-control purpose and restricted possession; exemptions are defenses or negations of facts)
Mayhew v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 484 (Va. App. 1995) (exemption language may be negative element or statutory defense; who bears burden depends on construction)
Tart v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 272 (Va. App. 2008) (no uniform rule for burden of persuasion on affirmative defenses in Virginia)
Hodge v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 338 (Va. 1976) (upholds use of inferences to shift burden; ultimate burden remains on Commonwealth)