defense,” we reverse and remand for a new trial. Williams v. State, 85 So.3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing for new trial where trial court was of the mistaken apparent belief that the prescription defense was only available to the prescription holder and thus did not instruct jury on that defense); State v. Latona, 75 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009) permits an individual to legally possess a controlled substance where the controlled substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription. The prescription defense is available to the prescription holder and any individual authorized by the prescription holder to hold the medications on his or her behalf.” citing McCoy v. State, 56 So.3d 37, 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); O’Hara v. State, 964 So.2d 839, 841 (Fla. 2d
holding prior assault on wife admissible to show husbands jealousy as motive for her murder holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney holding prescription defense available to wife who asserted that she was holding her husbands pills on his behalf recognizing a fallacy that the wife has  an estate or interest in the husbands lands in his lifetime as she can mortgage as her separate property   holding that the deceased defendant trustees wife was a representative of her husbands estate and a proper party for substitution purposes where the wife was the primary distributee of her deceased husbands estate