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).

Court must instruct jury on specific exemption raised as sole defense.

- Question of fact was presented as to the applicability of statutory exception, and it was error to fail to instruct jury on specific exemption raised by defendant as defendant's sole defense. Bryan v. State, 157 Ga. App. 635, 278 S.E.2d 177 (1981).

Co-owner who asserts the innocent owner exception under the statute has a two-fold burden. First, in order to establish standing to contest the forfeiture, the co-owner has the burden of proving the nature and extent of the co-owner's interest in the property. Second, the co-owner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the co-owner is entitled to the exception as defined by the statute. State v. Jackson, 197 Ga. App. 619, 399 S.E.2d 88 (1990).

Cited in McGuire v. State, 137 Ga. App. 369, 223 S.E.2d 764 (1976); Porterfield v. State, 137 Ga. App. 449, 224 S.E.2d 94 (1976); Jones v. State, 145 Ga. App. 224, 243 S.E.2d 645 (1978); First Bank & Trust v. State, 150 Ga. App. 436, 258 S.E.2d 59 (1979); Corbitt v. State, 169 Ga. App. 739, 315 S.E.2d 25 (1984); Sellers v. State, 182 Ga. App. 277, 355 S.E.2d 770 (1987).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Drugs and Controlled Substances, §§ 204, 205.

C.J.S.

- 28 C.J.S., Drugs and Narcotics, §§ 249, 256. 28A C.J.S., Drugs and Narcotics, §§ 342 et seq., 359 et seq. 67 C.J.S., Officers and Public Employees, § 302.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Controlled Substances Act (U.L.A.) § 506.

ALR.

- Instruction applying rule of reasonable doubt specifically to particular matter or defense as curing instruction placing burden of proof upon defendant in that regard, 120 A.L.R. 591.

Burden of proof and presumptions in tracing currency, bank account, or cash equivalent to illegal drug trafficking so as to permit forfeiture, or declaration as contraband, under state law, 104 A.L.R.5th 229.