In State v. Casshie, 8th Dist. No. 81341, 2002 Ohio 6514, the appellant obtained the drugs in question from a licensed health professional through the use of deception. In coming to its conclusion, the trial court considered R.C. 1.47 which makes clear that the legislature presumably intends for a just result when an enactment is made. The trial court also considered the strictures of R.C. 2901.04(A) which requires that "sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the State, and liberally construed in favor of the accused." Id. The court then noted that it was "uncontroverted that the defendant 'knowingly possessed, or used a controlled substance' but, as stated, the statute's exception clearly precludes prosecution since the prescriptions were issued by licensed health professionals authorized to prescribe drugs." Casshie at P17. The exception in question reads: "(B) This section does not apply to any of the following: (4) Any person who obtained the controlled substance pursuant to a lawful prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs." R.C. 2925.11(B)(4). Ultimately, the court in Casshie concluded: "Under the current wording of R.C. 2925.11, the state is precluded from seeking an indictment charging aggravated possession of drugs against individuals that knowingly deceive a physician in obtaining a prescription for a controlled substance because of the statutory exemptions. Understandably, this court would urge the legislature to revisit this issue and clearly make the distinction between lawfully obtained prescriptions and those prescriptions that were obtained utilizing deceptive and deceitful practices." Id. at P18.