Does the rule of lenity apply to a defendant convicted of possession of prescription drugs after the death of a patient?

People v. Manzo (2012) 53 Cal.4th 880, 889, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 16, 270 P.3d 711.) "Rather, the rule applies "only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregious ambiguity and uncertainty to justify invoking the rule." [Citation.] In other words, the rule of lenity is a tie-breaking principle, of relevance when " two reasonable interpretations of the same provision stand in relative equipoise.... " ' [Citation.]" ( Ibid. ) We do not find the rule of lenity to apply here.

Our dissenting colleague places reliance on two Court of Appeal decisions and one California Attorney General's opinion.

In People v. Ard (1938) 25 Cal.App.2d 630, 78 P.2d 254 ( Ard ) the defendant was charged with and convicted of the possession of morphine and codeine. The defendant, a nurse, received the drugs for the use in care of a patient who held a prescription for them as the nurse was escorting the patient to Texas. Some 30 days after their arrival in Texas, the patient died and the defendant returned to California with the drugs where he was arrested. Affirming the judgment because the defendant continued to possess the drugs after the patient's death, the court observed that "at one time" the defendant came within the prescription exception, that is, before the patient's death. Upon the patient's demise the prescription exception no longer applied. ( Id. at p. 631, 78 P.2d 254.)