State v. Reed
Decision Date | 01 July 1983 |
Parties | , 14 O.B.R. 75 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. REED, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. R.C. 3719.44 which authorizes the State Board of Pharmacy to add, reschedule and delete amendments to the schedules of controlled substances established in R.C. 3719.41 is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
2. The notice requirements of R.C. 3719.43 and 3719.44 in adopting a rule of schedule amendments, coupled with the public record requirements, are sufficient to satisfy the due process notice of proscribed conduct requirements of the state and federal Constitutions.
3. The determination whether a substance is a controlled substance under R.C. 3719.41 and Ohio Adm.Code 4729-11-04 is one of law to be decided by the court.
Richard G. Ward, Pros. Atty., and Jack Kellenberger, Kingston, for appellee.
Edward J. Brown, Chillicothe, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Ross County Court of Common Pleas upon a jury verdict finding Gregory Reed guilty of a violation of R.C. 2925.23(B)(1), which proscribes, inter alia, the knowing possession of a false or forged prescription. The following errors are assigned:
On April 11, 1981, appellant presented to a pharmacist at a drug store in Chillicothe, Ohio, a forged prescription for Valium, which drug contains diazepam and is a controlled substance which has been placed on Schedule IV of R.C. 3719.41 by the State Board of Pharmacy.
Appellant had sought by pretrial motion a dismissal of the indictment upon the basis diazepam was not enumerated by the General Assembly in the enactment of R.C. 3719.41 and the scheduling of the drug by the State Board of Pharmacy was "void as an illegal delegation of legislative power and violates due process." The motion was overruled by the trial court. The refusal to dismiss for the reasons stated form the basis for the first two assignments of error.
Proper disposition of the first two assignments of error requires an overview of the state and federal statutory scheme of drug control. In 1970 the Congress of the United States, in response to the growing problem of drug abuse, enacted a narcotic and dangerous drug act entitled, Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, in P.L. 91-513, which appears at Sections 801 et seq., Title 21, U.S.Code. Effective January 1, 1976, the General Assembly adopted a Controlled Substances Act in Am.Sub.H.B. No. 300 (136 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2311) which appears in R.C. Chapter 3719 and which, essentially, follows the federal act, including adoption in R.C. 3719.41 of the five schedules of drugs appearing in the federal act. Each schedule has its own criteria for placement of a drug in the schedule.
The General Assembly adopted in R.C. 3719.41 the enumerated drugs under the various schedules. That the General Assembly did not intend the drugs listed under the schedule to remain fixed until legislatively changed is reflected both in R.C. 3719.43 and 3719.44. The former section provides, in substance, that when a drug is scheduled, rescheduled, or removed by the United States Attorney General under the criteria under the federal act, the change "is automatically effected in the corresponding schedule or schedules in section 3719.41 of the Revised Code, subject to amendment pursuant to section 3719.44 of the Revised Code." 1
R.C. 3719.44, in the parts pertinent here, reads as follows:
Appellant's first assignment of error asserts the above statutory scheme which authorizes the State Board of Pharmacy to add, reschedule and delete amendments to the schedules constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in that it permits the board to, in effect, legislate a crime and determine criminal penalties.
This court considered and rejected an identical constitutional attack in 1981 in State v. Davis (Aug. 21, 1981), Scioto App. No. 1289, unreported. Inasmuch as an unreported opinion is, under Rule 2(G)(2) of the Supreme Court Rules for Reporting of Opinions, effective March 1, 1983, persuasive authority only and not controlling authority, we will reexamine our holding in the Davis decision.
In Belden v. Union Central Life Ins. Co. (1944), 143 Ohio St. 329, 342, 55 N.E.2d 629 , the following is stated:
Similarly, in State v. Switzer (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 47, 257 N.E.2d 908 wherein a statute granting authority to the Chief of the Division of Wildlife to vary by regulation the length of fish which may be possessed different from that in the statute was held not to be an invalid delegation of legislative power, the court stated, 22 Ohio St.2d at 49-50, 257 N.E.2d 908, the following:
Additionally, in S...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Frye
...an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency (State Board of Pharmacy)."); State v. Reed , 14 Ohio App.3d 63, 470 N.E.2d 150 (4th Dist.1983), paragraph one of the syllabus (" R.C. 3719.44 which authorizes the State Board of Pharmacy to add, reschedule and ......
-
Tiplick v. State
...v. O'Toole, 94 N.M. 303, 610 P.2d 190, 191 (1980) ; State v. Lisk, 21 N.C.App. 474, 204 S.E.2d 868, 870 (1974) ; State v. Reed, 14 Ohio App.3d 63, 470 N.E.2d 150, 154 (1983) ; State v. Brown, 576 P.2d 776, 777 (Okla.Crim.App.1978) ; State v. Sargent, 252 Or. 579, 449 P.2d 845, 845 (1969) (e......
-
State v. Gill
...to determine vehicle weight limits, even though driving a vehicle which exceeded those limits was a crime); State v. Reed (1983), 14 Ohio App.3d 63, 14 OBR 75, 470 N.E.2d 150 (R.C. 3719.44 validly allows the state pharmacy board to modify schedules for controlled substances, even though pos......
-
City of Parma Heights v. Owca
...WL 2934825, ¶ 20 ; State v. Daugert, 11th Dist. Lake No. 89–L–14–091, 1990 WL 94835, at *2 (June 29, 1990) ; State v. Reed, 14 Ohio App.3d 63, 68, 470 N.E.2d 150 (4th Dist.1983). Pursuant to R.C. 4506.06(M), R.C. 4729.01(F), and R.C. 3719.01, the drugs qualified as drugs of abuse. According......