People v. Haiman

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of unlawfully possessing a controlled substance. Court properly granted State's pretrial motion to bar her from testifying that, at the time of the offense, she had a legal prescription.Under totality of circumstances, court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Defendant to testify to the unsupported conclusion that, on the date at issue, she had a lawful prescription for hydomorphone.Court reasonably considered Defendant's proposed testimony to be insufficient to raise a statutory defense that should go to a jury. Such testimony would have required State to prove a negative to rebut the defense, an excessive and unreasonable burden.(SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)