Altice, J.
Latieka Page was found guilty after a bench trial of Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug after an Indiana State Police (ISP) trooper found Oxycodone in her vehicle during a traffic stop. She appeals, arguing that she established that the pills were obtained by a valid prescription.
We reverse.
…
Page was charged and convicted under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a), which provides in pertinent part: A person who, without a valid prescription or order of a practitioner acting in the course of the practitioner’s professional practice, knowingly or intentionally possesses . . . a narcotic drug (pure or adulterated) classified in schedule I or II, commits possession of . . . a narcotic drug, a Level 6 felony[.]
…
Page admits she possessed the Oxycodone but argues she should have not been convicted because she established that she possessed a valid prescription for it. The State, in urging us to affirm, argues that “the trial court could and did reasonably find that the pills Page possessed . . . were not obtained pursuant to a valid prescription.” We agree that the trial court could have so found, but it did not. To the contrary, the trial court expressly determined that the pills found in Page’s car “came from” one or more prescriptions that she filled in 2018. Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 38. In other words, the trial court believed Page. The court found that the question before it was: “[W]hen is that prescription no longer considered valid or . . . [if] the patient is no longer following the instruction or order for the medication[, when] does it become an unlawful act?” Id.
The court answered that inquiry with the following determination:
The defense of having a valid prescription or order from a practitioner is meant to protect a person when they are following the prescription so at all times during that period it is lawful to possess the drug and it is also meant to protect a person when they are traveling with the medication or simply transporting it to and from their place of abode. It protects a person only when they are following the prescribed methods of taking the medication for the period of the prescribed time as indicated in the prescription.
Id. at 39. Applying that to Page, the court found, “If [Page] had followed the prescription or order of the practitioner, then she would not have had these medi[c]ations some 7 to 16 months after the prescribed period of use.” Id. Because “[t]he length of time [Page] had the drugs indicates she was acting well outside the prescribed method or orders for taking the oxycodone[,]” the court concluded Page possessed the Oxycodone without a valid prescription. Id.
We cannot agree with the trial court’s determination that a validly issued prescription becomes invalid for purposes of I.C. § 35-48-4-6 upon a person’s failure to take the medicine as prescribed. There is nothing in the statute from which to infer that a prescription is no longer valid once the prescribed period of use elapses. The effect of the trial court’s determination is that every person who retains, that is, possesses, a prescription of a controlled substance for any time after the proscribed number of days commits a possession offense. We do not believe the legislature intended such a harsh result. This court has suggested that the “valid prescription” requirement is intended to assure the prescription was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. See Schuller, 625 N.E.2d at 1246. There is no evidence of such here. Nor is there any evidence for the proposition that Page obtained the prescriptions from anyone other than a practitioner in the scope of the practitioner’s professional practice.
Because Page proved by a preponderance of the evidence – and indeed the court expressly found – that Page had obtained the Oxycodone via one or more prior, validly-issued prescriptions, she successfully established her defense to the offense. Accordingly, we reverse her conviction for Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug.
Judgment reversed.
Bradford, C.J. and Robb, J., concur.