O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
(a) Possession and control of controlled substances or dangerous drugs by anyone other than the individuals specified in Code Section 16-13-35 or 16-13-72 shall be legal only if such drugs are in the original container in which they were dispensed by the pharmacist or the practitioner of the healing arts and are labeled according to Code Section 26-3-8. (b) The possession, filling, and use of canisters for remote automated medication systems pursuant to subsection (i) of Code Section 16-13-41 shall not be considered a violation of this Code section.
History
Ga. L. 1939, p. 288, § 5; Code 1933, § 79A-707, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 296, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 356, § 7; Ga. L. 2011, p. 308, § 3/HB 457.
Annotations
Code Commission notes. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1996, “Code Section 16-13-35” was substituted for “Code Sections 16-13-35” (now subsection (a)).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Search and seizure; pill box not immediately identifiable as contraband. - State failed to prove that an officer’s opening of a pill container found in the defendant’s pocket was justified based on consent when the defendant only consented to the removal of the pill box from the defendant’s pocket,
and the box was not immediately identifiable as contraband. The defendant’s convictions on controlled substances charges were reversed. McCormack v. State, 325 Ga. App. 183, 751 S.E.2d 904, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 985 (2013).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Construction of provision of Uniform Narcotic Drug Act requiring a physician’s
prescription as a prerequisite to a pharmacist’s sale of narcotics, 10 A.L.R.3d 560.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1986–2015 · leading case:
Adams v. Carlisle, 630 S.E.2d 529 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
Adams v. Carlisle, 630 S.E.2d 529 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Adams and Elliott were charged with forgery, and Adams was also charged with violating OCGA § 16-13-75, which requires that prescription drugs be kept in their original containers.”
Duvall v. State, 699 S.E.2d 761 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 16-13-75! provides: Possession and control of controlled substances .”
Duvall v. State, 712 S.E.2d 850 (Ga. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The actus reus in these statutes is possession of the drug, which one knows oneself to possess, when that drug is a controlled substance (in addition to the “original container” requirements of OCGA § 16-13-75). Therefore, possessing Zolpidem Tartrate, which one knows or…”
Owens v. the State, 778 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “1 Owens was also convicted of a minor traffic violation and on one count of possession of a drug not kept in its original container (OCGA § 16-13-75 (a)), but the drug conviction merged into his conviction of possession of a controlled substance for sentencing purposes.”
McCormack v. State, 751 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 16-13-30 (a) (prohibiting possession of controlled substances, under specified circumstances), 16-13-28 (a) (1) (defining alprazolam as a controlled substance), 16-13-26(1) (A) (ix) (defining hydrocodone as a controlled substance).”
Black v. State, 391 S.E.2d 432 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-13-75, which proscribes possession of dangerous drugs outside the original prescription container, does not apply to controlled substances, although the predecessor statute (Ga.”
Haggard v. State, 690 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “8 OCGA § 16-13-75. 9 OCGA § 16-13-30 (a). 10 Reason v.”
Evans v. State, 619 S.E.2d 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Judgment affirmed. Ruffin, C. J., and Barnes, J., concur.”
Thackston v. State, 343 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-13-75. The defendant’s conviction of possession of tetracycline is therefore reversed.”
Howell v. State, 739 S.E.2d 700 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-13-75 (a). Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.”
Jason C. Howell v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “3 OCGA § 16-13-75 (a). Properly viewed,4 the evidence shows that on June 9, 2011, the fourteen-year- old victim, S.”
James McCormack v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2 OCGA § 16-13-75 (a) (pertinently providing that possession of controlled substances shall be legal only if such drugs are in the original container in which they were dispensed by the pharmacist and are labeled according to OCGA § 26-3-8).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.