AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant attempted to obtain a larger quantity of the prescription drug Xanax than was prescribed by altering a prescription. This led to charges of forgery and an attempt to acquire a drug precursor by misrepresentation. The State later amended the charges to focus on forgery related to obtaining dangerous drugs unlawfully and altering a prescription or written order (para 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the Defendant's objection to the amendment of the criminal information waived any argument that he should have been charged under a more specific statute related to obtaining dangerous drugs unlawfully, rather than under the general forgery statute (para 8).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the State was required to charge him under the more specific offense of seeking to obtain dangerous drugs by unlawful means, rather than the general offense of forgery, based on the general/specific statute rule (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's objection to the State's attempt to amend the criminal information prior to trial waived any argument that he should have been charged under a more specific statute related to obtaining dangerous drugs unlawfully, rather than under the general forgery statute.
• Whether the general/specific statute rule required the State to charge the Defendant under the more specific statute for seeking to obtain dangerous drugs by unlawful means instead of the general forgery statute.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and dismissing the complaint, based on the general/specific statute rule (para 20).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, J., concurring):
  The Court rejected the State's waiver argument, finding no logical relationship between the Defendant's objection to the amendment of the criminal information and the application of the general/specific statute rule. The Court also noted the absence of authority supporting the State's position that the objection waived any later argument regarding the specific statute requirement (paras 8-12).
  The Court concluded that the elements of the offense of forgery were subsumed within the elements of the offense of unlawful means of obtaining dangerous drugs. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the State to charge the Defendant with the more specific offense. The Court found no clear expression of legislative intent to allow charging under the general law in this case (paras 13-19).