La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 40:991 (2026)

Prescription for controlled dangerous substances; proof of valid prescription; time period for raising defense; notice to prosecution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§991. Prescription for controlled dangerous substances; proof of valid prescription; time period for raising defense; notice to prosecution

           A. An individual who claims possession of a valid prescription for any controlled dangerous substance as a defense to a violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law shall have the obligation to produce sufficient proof of a valid prescription to the appropriate prosecuting office. Production of the original prescription bottle with the defendant's name, the pharmacist's name, and prescription number shall be sufficient proof of a valid prescription as provided for in this Section.

           B. As used in this Section, "controlled dangerous substance" shall have the same meaning as provided in R.S. 40:961 and "prescription" shall have the same meaning as provided in R.S. 40:961.

           C. Any individual who claims the defense of a valid prescription for any controlled dangerous substance shall raise this defense before commencement of the trial through a motion to quash.

           Added by Acts 2009, No. 265, §1, eff. August 15, 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: State v. Williams, 101 So. 3d 533 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Williams, 101 So. 3d 533 (La. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “R.S. 40:991 states what constitutes sufficient proof of a valid prescription.”
State v. Harris, 79 So. 3d 1037 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “R.S. 40:991, which was added by 2009 La. Acts No.”
State v. Tran, 115 So. 3d 672 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 40:991 should not be read to restrict the sources of evidence a defendant may use to establish that he possessed a validly issued prescription.”
State v. Franklin, 126 So. 3d 663 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 40:991. See State v. Tran, 12-1219, pp.”
State v. Faggin, 150 So. 3d 298 (La. 2014). · cites it 2× “R.S. 40:991(A), and he or she must raise the defense before trial by way of a motion to quash.”
State v. Ruth, 147 So. 3d 1177 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “R.S. 40:991. The State also argues that by the defendant’s own admission, his prescription was for only sixty pills, and no refills were authorized.”
Brown v. Baton Rouge Police Dep't (M.D. La. 2025). · cites it 9× “Wallace maintains that Plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden under La. Rev. Stat. § 40:991 of providing proof of a valid prescription.”
State v. Rainey, 150 So. 3d 370 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “R.S. 40:991, which sets forth that “[production of the original prescription bottle |swith the defendant’s name, the pharmacist’s name, and prescription number shall be sufficient proof of a valid prescription as provided for in this Section.”
State v. Ioveniti, 238 So. 3d 496 (La. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “R.S. 40:991 (providing that "[a]n individual who claims possession of a valid prescription for any controlled dangerous substance as a defense to a violation of the provisions of the [UCDSL] shall have the obligation to produce sufficient proof of a valid prescription to the…”
State v. Cobb, 161 So. 3d 908 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “R.S. 40:991 states that: A. An individual who claims possession of a valid prescription for any controlled dangerous substance as a defense to a violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law shall have the obligation to produce sufficient proof…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 40:991(A): 4 cases
State v. Williams, 101 So. 3d 533 (La. Ct. App. 2012). “R.S. 40:991 states what constitutes sufficient proof of a valid prescription.”
State v. Faggin, 150 So. 3d 298 (La. 2014). “R.S. 40:991(A), and he or she must raise the defense before trial by way of a motion to quash.”
State v. Ruth, 147 So. 3d 1177 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 40:991. The State also argues that by the defendant’s own admission, his prescription was for only sixty pills, and no refills were authorized.”
Brown v. Baton Rouge Police Dep't (M.D. La. 2025). “Wallace maintains that Plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden under La. Rev. Stat. § 40:991 of providing proof of a valid prescription.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 40:991(C): 4 cases
State v. Faggin, 150 So. 3d 298 (La. 2014). “R.S. 40:991(A), and he or she must raise the defense before trial by way of a motion to quash.”
Brown v. Baton Rouge Police Dep't (M.D. La. 2025). “Wallace maintains that Plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden under La. Rev. Stat. § 40:991 of providing proof of a valid prescription.”
State v. Ruth, 147 So. 3d 1177 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 40:991. The State also argues that by the defendant’s own admission, his prescription was for only sixty pills, and no refills were authorized.”
State v. Ioveniti, 238 So. 3d 496 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 40:991 (providing that "[a]n individual who claims possession of a valid prescription for any controlled dangerous substance as a defense to a violation of the provisions of the [UCDSL] shall have the obligation to produce sufficient proof of a valid prescription to the…”
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.