Price v. State

The Court reversed the defendant's convictions because the trial court's questioning regarding whether a witness was telling the truth clearly intimated the trial court's opinion of the witness' credibility, which is a material fact in every case.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Kaycee Price was convicted of three counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraudulent means1 and seven counts of forgery.2 Price appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by: 1 denying her motion for mistrial based on improper comments by the trial court regarding the credibility of a witness; 2 overruling her objection to the prosecutor’s closing arguments; and 3 imposing an improper sentence. We reverse Price’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial, for reasons that follow. Viewed in favor of the verdict,3 the record shows that Price was hired as a data entry clerk for Dr. Herman Levy’s medical practice in 2000; she eventually became the office manager. Price called a pharmacy and ordered multiple refills of a hydrocodone prescription for herself. Dr. Levy testified that he did not authorize Price to call in the prescription refills, explaining that “he would not authorize anyone to call in a narcotic prescription for themselves. No way, no how, nothing. . . . That’s my standard operating procedure.”4 Price also stamped Dr. Levy’s signature on multiple refill prescriptions for Adderall an amphetamine for her husband, Derek Cody. According to Dr. Levy, he prescribed Adderall for Cody in May 2007, but he did not authorize Price to stamp his name to any of Cody’s Adderall prescription refills.5

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Price guilty of three counts of obtaining hydrocodone by fraudulent means Counts 2, 3, and 4 and seven counts of forgery Counts 13-19 with regard to the Adderall prescription.6 This appeal follows.

Price v. State

The Court reversed the defendant's convictions because the trial court's questioning regarding whether a witness was telling the truth clearly intimated the trial court's opinion of the witness' credibility, which is a material fact in every case.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report