State v. Pountney

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the state failed to prove the statutory “bulk amount” of transdermal fentanyl required to enhance Mark Pountney’s aggravated-possession offense to a second-degree felony. Because the applicable pharmaceutical reference manual did not specify a maximum daily dose in a usual dose range for transdermal fentanyl, the state could not rely on morphine dosage information to establish the bulk amount. The court affirmed the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ judgment.

Holdings

1. To prove the bulk amount under the dosage prong of R.C. 2925.01(D)(1)(d), the State must identify a maximum daily dose in the usual dose range for the drug at issue that is specified in a standard pharmaceutical reference manual; a manual's dosing instructions or reference points for calculating a dose are insufficient.
2. The State may not rely on the usual dose range of morphine, an entirely different drug, to establish the bulk amount of transdermal fentanyl when the reference manual does not specify a fentanyl dose range or maximum daily dose.
3. The State failed to present sufficient evidence that Pountney possessed at least five times the bulk amount of transdermal fentanyl; under the current statutory scheme, the offense therefore remained a fifth-degree felony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State may use the usual dose range of morphine and a morphine-to-fentanyl conversion table to establish the maximum daily dose in the usual dose range of transdermal fentanyl under R.C. 2925.01(D)(1)(d).
2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Pountney possessed at least five times the statutory bulk amount of transdermal fentanyl for purposes of the enhanced felony level in R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(c).

Disposition

affirmed