Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

The way that Tennessee’s simple possession statute is written provides that it is an offense for a person to possess a controlled substance “[u]nless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of professional practice.” Thus, Tennessee law creates a “valid prescription” defense to a simple possession charge. To establish such a defense, a defendant basically has to prove to a jury’s satisfaction that he or she had a valid prescription to possess the controlled substance at the time the offense was committed.

In a case that recently came before the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, the defendant tried to prove that he possessed a valid prescription for a controlled substance by arguing that the prescription belonged to his friend and that his friend had a prescription for the substance which created a situation that would establish a “valid prescription” defense. However, the defendant offered no evidence that his friend had a valid prescription for the substance other than the friend’s testimony. No pharmaceutical or medical testimony or records were offered at all. The jury was thus free to find, and did so find, that the “valid prescription” defense was not established and that the defendant was guilty of simple possession.

When, as here, a defense against a criminal charge exists, proof of the defense must be established in a persuasive enough manner to convince the jury or judge trying the case that the claim of defense is actually true. With regard to a valid prescription defense, medical or pharmaceutical records showing proof of the prescription are by far the most persuasive evidence that can be offered, and should have been offered in the above case if such records existed. Defendants who find themselves in similar situations would be wise to contact an experienced East Tennessee drug crime defense attorney who can assist them in the presentation of their defense
.
Source: (State v. Kilpatrick, 35 TAM 11-25, 1/21/10, Nashville, Witt, 6 pages.)