## Facts

- Florentino Segovia and Ramiro Hernandez Garcia were jointly tried for unlawful possession of marijuana under Idaho Code § 37-3202.
- At the time, Idaho law classified marijuana as a “narcotic drug” and treated it as having no lawful medical purpose.
- The statute prohibited possession of a narcotic drug “except upon the written prescription” of specified licensed medical professionals.
- The State presented evidence sufficient to prove defendants knowingly possessed marijuana.
- The State did not present evidence that defendants lacked prescriptions or otherwise failed to qualify for statutory authorization.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the “prescription” language functioned as an exception to criminal liability, not as part of the State’s required proof.
- The jury convicted both defendants, and each received a sentence not to exceed thirty months; both appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory “except upon written prescription” language is an element of unlawful possession that the State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, or an exception the defendant must establish.
2. Whether jury instructions placing the burden on defendants to show a prescription violated the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed both convictions.
- The court held the “written prescription” clause is a statutory exception, not an element of the offense.
- The State was not required to prove in its case-in-chief that defendants did not have prescriptions.
- The challenged jury instruction was not erroneous because the State’s burden remained proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense’s elements, including knowing possession.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute states a general prohibition and then includes an exception in a separate clause or proviso, the prosecution need not negate the exception in the charging instrument or prove the nonexistence of the exception at trial.
- After the State proves the elements of the general offense (here, knowing possession of a narcotic drug), the defendant bears the burden to bring themself within a statutory exception such as lawful possession by prescription.
- Assigning defendants the burden to produce or establish facts that place them within an exception does not violate the presumption of innocence when the exception is not part of the offense’s definition and involves matters particularly within the defendant’s knowledge.

## Conclusion

The court upheld convictions for possession of marijuana by treating the prescription language in the narcotics statute as an exception rather than an element, requiring defendants—not the State—to show lawful authorization once knowing possession was proven.


State v. Segovia, 457 P.2d 905 (Idaho 1969)