PA Superior Court: Joint Purchase of Lethal Drugs Does Not Necessarily Eliminate Liability for Drug Delivery Resulting in Death
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Scott, upholding the defendant’s conviction for drug delivery resulting in death and rejecting the defendant’s argument that he could not be prosecuted for DDRD because he and the decedent planned to use the jointly purchased drugs together. Following Scott, the joint purchase of drugs to share may still provide a defense to DDRD charges, but the analysis is heavily fact specific.
The Facts of Scott
The charges in Scott stemmed from the overdose death of the decedent on June 29, 2019. The decedent and a friend arranged to purchase heroin from the friend’s drug dealer, "Ro-Ro." When Ro-Ro was unavailable, the defendant, identified as Ro-Ro's son, facilitated the purchase. The defendant was picked up by the decedent and the friend. He directed them to multiple locations in Harrisburg, and he was eventually able to pick up the drugs with money provided by the decedent. The group then went to a park where the decedent and the friend used the heroin. The heroin was mixed with fentanyl, and the decedent overdosed and died.
The Criminal Trial
At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence that the defendant physically handled the drug transactions and delivered the fentanyl to the friend, who acted as an agent for the decedent. The defendant’s defense attorney argued that the defendant was merely a joint user and not a dealer, asserting that the trio had a mutual plan to acquire and use drugs together. The defense attorney requested a jury instruction on joint acquisition and use instructing the jury that this would be a defense to the charges. The trial court denied the requested instruction.
The jury convicted Scott of DDRD and possession with the intent to deliver (PWID) but acquitted him of third-degree murder and evidence tampering. The trial court sentenced him to seven to nineteen years of incarceration followed by probation.
The Superior Court Appeal
The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the court affirmed. On appeal, the defendant challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of the requested jury instruction.
Sufficiency of Evidence: Scott argued that the evidence did not establish that he "delivered" the drugs to Savage. He claimed the trio were joint users and the drugs were jointly acquired for mutual use, negating the "delivery" element required for DDRD and PWID.
Jury Instruction: Scott argued the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the theory of joint acquisition and use, depriving the jury of a full understanding of his defense.
The Superior Court’s Ruling
Delivery and Sufficiency of Evidence: First, the Superior Court rejected the sufficiency argument. The court applied the statutory definition of "delivery" under Pennsylvania law, which includes the actual or constructive transfer of a controlled substance from one person to another. The court concluded that the defendant’s physical conveyance of the fentanyl to the friend, who was acting as the decedent’s agent, constituted delivery. The evidence established that the decedent provided the funds, and the defendant facilitated the purchase and transfer of the drugs that caused the decedent’s death.
The court also hinted but did not conclusively decide that Pennsylvania law does not necessarily support the theory that joint acquisition and use negate delivery. The record reflected that the decedent had no personal relationship with the defendant and only participated in the transactions because the friend was unable to reach her usual dealer. The decedent’s role was limited to providing transportation and funds, undermining the claim of joint acquisition. She did not actually use drugs with the defendant but instead used him to purchase the drugs. Accordingly, even if joint acquisition and use would provide a defense, the facts did not necessarily support that defense in this particular case.
Jury Instruction: The Superior Court also upheld the trial court's decision with respect to the denial of the proposed jury instruction, finding that the requested instruction was unsupported by Pennsylvania law and the evidence. The trial court’s instructions accurately reflected the statutory and legal standards for "delivery" and DDRD.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this was not the best set of facts for a defendant assert a joint acquisition and use or joint constructive possession defense to a charge of drug delivery resulting in death. Where two friends go buy drugs from someone and use them, with fatal results, it may still be possible to argue that the friend who physically received the drugs from the seller is not on the hook for drug delivery resulting in death even if they physically then handed a portion of the drugs to the eventual decedent. The problem here is that the defendant and decedent were not friends, they did not really buy drugs together, they did not use the drugs at the same time, and they did not have the kind of relationship that showed that this was some kind of joint venture. Instead, the relationship seemed more like a typical buyer-seller relationship in that the decedent employed the defendant to find the drugs for her. The fact that the defendant also used the drugs therefore did not defeat the DDRD charges. This case certainly limits the defense under Pennsylvania law, but the case may be subject to additional appeals, and the defense may still be available for defendants with better facts in terms of the prior relationship between the acquirer and recipient of the drugs.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
