Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Shedd v. State
Citations: 137 So. 3d 456; 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3922; 2014 WL 1031449Docket: No. 4D12-1509
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 19, 2014; Florida; State Appellate Court
Daniel Shedd appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana, alprazolam, and hydrocodone. The appellate court reverses the convictions for alprazolam and hydrocodone due to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on a prescription defense, which is deemed a fundamental error and indicative of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirms the conviction for possession of marijuana. During a traffic stop by Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), officers discovered prescription pill bottles and marijuana in Shedd's mother's vehicle, which he was driving with her permission. Although Shedd admitted the marijuana was his, he claimed the pills belonged to his mother, who testified to holding valid prescriptions for both drugs. The jury was instructed solely on the elements of possession without any mention of affirmative defenses. Following the trial, Shedd was convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms. On appeal, Shedd argues that the jury should have been instructed on the prescription defense and that his counsel’s failure to request this instruction constitutes ineffective assistance. The appellate court, reviewing for fundamental error due to the absence of such a jury instruction, concludes that this omission deprived Shedd of a fair trial and aligns with previous case law. The defendant claimed he was entitled to possess controlled pills due to his mother's valid prescription and thus should be acquitted of trafficking charges. However, the jury was not instructed on the prescription defense, which the court later determined was a significant error. Possession is an element of trafficking, and a valid prescription serves as an affirmative defense, applicable not only to the prescription holder but also to individuals authorized by them. The defendant argued he was lawfully holding his mother's prescribed medication for safekeeping, making the prescription defense central to his case. The court concluded that the lack of jury instruction on this crucial defense constituted fundamental error, depriving the defendant of a fair trial. Furthermore, the failure of the defense counsel to request this instruction was deemed ineffective assistance of counsel, evident from the record. Consequently, the convictions for possession of alprazolam and hydrocodone were reversed, and a new trial was ordered, while the conviction for possession of marijuana was affirmed.