Normas sobre el uso de recetas médicas en Georgia

Explicación Simple

Esta ley habla sobre las recetas médicas y quién debe probar que son legítimas. Si alguien es acusado de un crimen relacionado con drogas, no tiene que demostrar que la receta era para un propósito médico válido; es el estado quien debe probar que es culpable.

Es como cuando en un juego de fútbol, el árbitro debe comprobar que un gol fue válido, no el jugador que lo anotó. Si el árbitro no tiene pruebas, el gol cuenta.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan es acusado de poseer medicamentos sin receta. En el juicio, el juez le dice que no tiene que demostrar que su receta era correcta; en cambio, el fiscal tiene que probar que Juan realmente hizo algo malo.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Former Code 1933, § 79A-829 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-13-50 ) was not unconstitutional upon the statute's face. Strong v. State, 246 Ga. 612 , 272 S.E.2d 281 (1980). Defendant need not prove prescription was written for legitimate medical purpose. - Former Code 1933, § 79A-829 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-13-50 ) would be unconstitutionally applied if the trial court were to charge that the statute required the defendant to prove that medical prescriptions were written for legitimate medical purpose within the meaning of former Code 1933, § 79A-820 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-13-41(f)(3)) rather than charging that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those allegations of the indictment. Strong v. State, 246 Ga. 612 , 272 S.E.2d 281 (1980). Qualification of expert to perform drug analysis. - When a pretrial hearing to determine whether an expert designated by appellant was qualified to perform analysis of alleged drugs revealed that the expert was neither licensed, registered, nor otherwise exempted pursuant to O.C.G.A. Ch. 13, T. 16, and when the trial court gave defense counsel approximately 24 hours to determine whether counsel wished to qualify this expert for any procedures which did not require reference samples of the controlled substance, or to qualify another expert, and counsel did neither, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for independent laboratory analysis. McAdoo v. State, 164 Ga. App. 23 , 295 S.E.2d 114 (1982).