Mass Supreme Judicial Court vacates manslaughter conviction based on merely providing heroin to person who overdosed

As reported in this local article, the top court in Massachusetts has vacated "the involuntary manslaughter conviction of a man who provided drugs in a fatal overdose."  Here is the context and commentary from the press piece: 

Jesse Carrillo was convicted two years ago for the 2013 fatal heroin overdose of fellow UMass Amherst student Eric Sinacori, who was 20 when he died. On Thursday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court vacated Carrillo's manslaughter conviction, arguing that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence that Carrillo knew the heroin would cause a fatal overdose.

Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan said in a statement that it's "disheartening that the Supreme Judicial Court does not believe heroin use carries a high probability of substantial harm or death." He added: "The families who have lost loved ones to this brutal epidemic would surely disagree with the Court’s analysis, as do we.”

But Northeastern University law professor Leo Beletsky says if the case were upheld, it would have set a dangerous precedent. "If the government could charge every person who shares drugs with someone who subsequently dies, the way that the government had argued this case previously would essentially turn those friends, those partners, those co-users into potential murderers," he said.

The full unanimous ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is available at this link, and it my be of particular interest to law profs and 1Ls now getting to the homicide unit in their CrimLaw classes (and to many others). Here are excerpts from the opinion's introduction: 

To find a defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter caused by wanton or reckless conduct, our case law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in conduct that creates "a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another."  Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383, 399 (1944).  Selling or giving heroin to another person may be wanton or reckless conduct where, under the circumstances, there is a high degree of likelihood that the person will suffer substantial harm, such as an overdose or death, from the use of those drugs.  And in many cases the circumstances surrounding the distribution of heroin will permit a rational finder of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the transfer of heroin created a high degree of likelihood of substantial harm, such as an overdose or death. But not every case will present circumstances that make such conduct "wanton or reckless." This is one such case.

We conclude that the mere possibility that the transfer of heroin will result in an overdose does not suffice to meet the standard of wanton or reckless conduct under our law. The Commonwealth must introduce evidence showing that, considering the totality of the particular circumstances, the defendant knew or should have known that his or her conduct created a high degree of likelihood of substantial harm, such as an overdose or death.

Here, no evidence was presented during the Commonwealth's case-in-chief that would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the inherent possibility of substantial harm arising from the use of heroin -- which is present in any distribution of heroin -- had been increased by specific circumstances to create a high degree of likelihood of substantial harm.  For instance, the Commonwealth did not present evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that the heroin was unusually potent or laced with fentanyl; evidence that Sinacori was particularly vulnerable to an overdose because of his age, use of other drugs, or prior overdoses; or evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that Sinacori had overdosed but failed to seek help.  In the absence of any such evidence, we conclude that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of producing sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant's conduct in this case created a high degree of likelihood that Sinacori would suffer substantial harm, such as an overdose or death, from his use of the heroin.  The defendant's conviction of involuntary manslaughter must therefore be vacated, and a required finding of not guilty entered.

As many of my former students likely recall, the Welansky case is still one of my favorite cases to teach during 1L Criminal Law. I find it fascinating to see that tragic case and the legal precedent that it set still of great importance 75 years later in very different sad setting.