FL · jury_instructions
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.6(n)
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS LAWFULLY OBTAINED FROM A PRACTITIONER OR PURSUANT TO A VALID PRESCRIPTION
§§ 499.03(1), 893.13(6)(a) Fla. Stats.
It is a defense to the charge of [possession] [trafficking via possession] for a person to possess a controlled substance which [he] [she] lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice.
Like all affirmative defenses and pursuant to § 893.10(1), Fla. Stat., the burden of going forward with evidence of the “controlled substance was lawfully obtained” defense is upon the defendant. Fla. Stats. 893.10(1), 893.13(6)(a), and 499.03(1) are silent, however, as to the burden of persuasion for the affirmative defense. There is no case law, as of October 2018, as to (1) which party bears the burden of persuasion of the affirmative defense and (2) the standard for the burden of persuasion. Under the common law, defendants had both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion on an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Florida Supreme Court has often decided, however, that once a defendant meets the burden of production on an affirmative defense, the burden of persuasion is on the State to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g., self-defense and consent to enter in a burglary prosecution). In the absence of case law, trial judges must resolve the issue via a special instruction. See the opinion in Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), for further guidance.
For example, if the burden to prove the affirmative defense is on the defendant under the preponderance of the evidence standard.
If you find the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] lawfully obtained the controlled substance from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of [possession of a controlled substance] [trafficking via possession]. If the defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] [she] lawfully obtained the controlled substance from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or, if the burden of disproving the affirmative defense is on the State under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
If you find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not lawfully obtain the controlled substance from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, you should find [him] [her] guilty, if all of the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant lawfully obtained the controlled substance from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of [possession of a controlled substance] [trafficking via possession].
Definitions.
To “possess a substance” means the defendant a) knew of the existence of the substance and b) intentionally exercised control over that substance.
Give if applicable.
Control can be exercised over a substance whether the substance is carried on a person, near a person, or in a completely separate location. Mere proximity to a substance does not establish that the person intentionally exercised control over the substance in the absence of additional evidence. Control can be established by proof that (defendant) had direct personal power to control the substance or the present ability to direct its control by another.
Joint possession. Give if applicable.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess a substance.
§ 893.02(23), Fla. Stat.
“Practitioner” means a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 458, a dentist licensed pursuant to chapter 466, a veterinarian licensed pursuant to chapter 474, an osteopathic physician licensed pursuant to chapter 459, an advanced registered nurse practitioner certified under chapter 464, a naturopath licensed pursuant to chapter 462, a certified optometrist licensed under chapter 463, a psychiatric nurse who has an advanced registered nurse practitioner certified under § 464.012, Fla. Stat., and who has a master’s or doctoral degree in psychiatric nursing, holds a national advanced practice certification as a psychiatric mental health advanced practice nurse, and has 2 years of post-master’s clinical experience under the supervision of a physician, a podiatric physician licensed pursuant to chapter 461, or a physician assistant licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, provided such practitioner holds a valid federal controlled substance registry number.
§ 893.02(24), Fla. Stat.
“Prescription” includes any order for drugs or medicinal supplies which is written or transmitted by any means of communication by a licensed practitioner authorized by the laws of this state to prescribe such drugs or medicinal supplies, is issued in good faith and in the course of professional practice, is intended to be dispensed by a person authorized by the laws of this state to do so, and meets the requirements of § 893.04, Fla. Stat. (If there is a dispute about whether the requirements were met, the judge should insert those requirements or the requirement(s) in dispute.)
[The term also includes an order for drugs or medicinal supplies transmitted or written by a physician, dentist, veterinarian, or other practitioner licensed to practice in a state other than Florida, but only if the pharmacist called upon to fill such an order determines, in the exercise of his or her professional judgment, that the order was issued pursuant to a valid patient-physician relationship, that it is authentic, and that the drugs or medicinal supplies ordered are considered necessary for the continuation of treatment of a chronic or recurrent illness.]
Provenance
- Source
- floridabar.org
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-18
- Edition
- 2026-08-18
- Content hash
9cc604c496953a2a4010616e8084c9b9121b2b89a7fa3e740d73eea589060906
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.