Merger inappropriate when prescriptions picked up on different dates.

- Although the accomplice's conduct in fraudulently representing to the pharmacist that the accomplice had a doctor's authority to call in the prescriptions for the defendant occurred in a single telephone call, the defendant's conduct of acquiring possession of that prescription by going to the pharmacy to pick up that prescription on that date and on a separate occasion 10 days later was not the same conduct for the purpose of deciding whether the offenses merged; thus, Count 8 of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud did not merge with Counts 1 or 2 for sentencing purposes. Hopkins v. State, 328 Ga. App. 844, 761 S.E.2d 896 (2014).

Cited in Barner v. State, 139 Ga. App. 50, 227 S.E.2d 874 (1976); Elrod v. State, 143 Ga. App. 331, 238 S.E.2d 291 (1977); Goldsmith v. State, 148 Ga. App. 786, 252 S.E.2d 657 (1979); Little v. State, 157 Ga. App. 462, 278 S.E.2d 17 (1981); Smith v. State, 221 Ga. App. 670, 472 S.E.2d 503 (1996); Kimbrough v. State, 300 Ga. 878, 799 S.E.2d 229 (2017).

O.C.G.A.

§ 16-13-43(a)(3) did not repeal O.C.G.A. § 16-9-1 by implication. - Repeal by implication is not favored, and if later Act does not embrace whole subject matter of prior Act and is not entirely repugnant to it, the court should apply a construction that will give the two statutes concurrent efficacy. State v. O'Neal, 156 Ga. App. 384, 274 S.E.2d 575 (1980).

Prosecution for violation of paragraph (a)(3) as bar to reindictment and reprosecution.

- If former Code 1933, § 79A-822 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-13-43) was exclusive section to be applied in a given case, former Code 1933, § 26-1701 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-9-1) still generally proscribed part of same conduct, and any attempt to reindict and reprosecute would be barred by a plea of former jeopardy under former Code 1933, § 26-507 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-1-8). State v. O'Neal, 156 Ga. App. 384, 274 S.E.2d 575 (1980).

Evidence sufficient for obtaining controlled substance by fraud conviction.

- Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of five counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud because, although only the defendant's alleged accomplice testified that the defendant possessed the requisite criminal intent to obtain possession of the controlled substances by fraud and deception, the state presented evidence of corroborating circumstances that proved the defendant's intent as the defendant went to the pharmacy on one occasion to pick up a medication that was clearly labeled as having been dispensed for the defendant, purportedly on the authority of a doctor who had never provided care for the defendant. Hopkins v. State, 328 Ga. App. 844, 761 S.E.2d 896 (2014).

New trial properly denied.

- Since the jury was properly instructed as to the charged offense of criminal attempt to obtain possession of a controlled substance by forgery, the defendant did not request that the word "forgery" be defined, and the defendant did not take the position that forgery was a lesser-included offense of the crime of attempting to obtain possession of a controlled substance by forgery, a new trial was properly denied; further, the term "forgery" was not so obscure or technical that it required the court to sua sponte define the term for the jury. Sosebee v. State, 282 Ga. App. 905, 640 S.E.2d 379 (2006).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Drugs and Controlled Substances, §§ 19 et seq., 31, 40, 45, 168, 196.

C.J.S.

- 28 C.J.S., Drugs and Narcotics, §§ 188, 189, 196, 263, 269.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Controlled Substances Act (U.L.A.) § 403.

ALR.

- What constitutes "possession" of a narcotic drug proscribed by § 2 of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, 91 A.L.R.2d 810.

Offense of aiding and abetting illegal possession of drugs or narcotics, 47 A.L.R.3d 1239.

Validity and construction of statute creating presumption or inference of intent to sell from possession of specified quantity of illegal drugs, 60 A.L.R.3d 1128.

Common-law right of action for damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of sale or gift of intoxicating liquor or habit-forming drug to another, 97 A.L.R.3d 528; 62 A.L.R.4th 16.

Criminal responsibility for physical measures undertaken in connection with treatment of mentally disordered patient, 99 A.L.R.3d 854.

Social host's liability for injuries incurred by third parties as a result of intoxicated guest's negligence, 62 A.L.R.4th 16.