## Facts

- DEA investigators observed unusually large numbers of Schedule II prescriptions written by Dr. Mary Hoffner in the Fort Collins, Colorado area.
- A DEA agent posed as a patient seeking “diet pills” and received prescriptions for large amounts of controlled substances, including Seconal, Biphetamine, and Valium.
- The government presented testimony from the undercover agent, expert witnesses, and a former patient who received large-quantity prescriptions for other controlled substances.
- Evidence showed patients receiving large-quantity prescriptions paid substantially higher visit fees than regular patients.
- Patients receiving large-quantity prescriptions were directed to use different pharmacies and were told what ailments to claim if questioned by pharmacists.
- Dr. Hoffner testified that such patients did not actually have the ailments she told them to report.
- Dr. Hoffner was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances based on prescriptions allegedly not issued for a legitimate medical purpose under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and related regulations.
- A jury acquitted her on two counts and convicted her on fifteen counts; she appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 by excluding lay opinion testimony from defense witnesses about whether Dr. Hoffner intended the charged prescriptions to be for a legitimate medical purpose.
2. Whether the jury instructions adequately stated the intent requirement for unlawful distribution by a physician under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), including the “legitimate medical purpose” standard.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions.
- The district court properly excluded the proposed lay opinions on Dr. Hoffner’s intent because the witnesses lacked first-hand perception of the relevant doctor–patient encounters.
- The jury instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately required the government to prove knowing or intentional prescribing outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, and did not misstate the law or shift the burden of proof.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 701, lay opinion must be rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to deciding a fact in issue; opinions speculating about a defendant’s intent are inadmissible when the witness did not observe the key events.
- A physician violates 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) when she knowingly or intentionally prescribes controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.
- Criminal intent in unlawful prescribing cases may be proven circumstantially, including through atypical prescribing patterns, financial arrangements, lack of genuine medical justification, and efforts to avoid scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld Dr. Hoffner’s convictions, holding that the trial court correctly excluded speculative lay testimony about her intent and that the jury was properly instructed on the intent and “legitimate medical purpose” requirements governing physician prescribing under § 841(a)(1).


United States v. Hoffner, 777 F.2d 1423 (10th Cir. 1985)