Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit
After conducting its “fact-sensitive analysis,” the court determined that Shore possessed the drugs from the start, noting that Morrison and Shore were friends; that they pooled their money together to make the purchase; and that Shore was physically present at the time of the purchase.171 The court concluded as follows: The evidence clearly implies that when defendant bought the four decks both were in joint possession of the drugs—that is, defendant had actual possession and Shore constructive possession of the heroin. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we agree with the trial court that because defendant and Shore simultaneously and jointly acquired possession of the drugs for their own use, intending only to share it together, defendant cannot be charged with the crime of distribution.172
C. Analyzing the simultaneous acquisition requirement Courts are split on how they interpret the joint-user doctrine’s requirement that the drugs be simultaneously acquired. Some courts have held or implied that users must be physically present at the time of purchase to be joint-possessors. Other courts have taken a more holistic approach, finding that the defense may apply where users pool their money to buy drugs even if they are not both physically present for the purchase. Check to see which approach courts in your jurisdiction have adopted.
171
Morrison, 902 A.2d at 870–71.
172
Morrison, 902 A.2d at 871 (citations omitted).
Disclaimer: All content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice
54
