C. Analyzing the simultaneous acquisition requirement

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, 902A.2d at 870–71.

172 Morrison, 902A.2d at 871 (citations omitted).

54

Disclaimer: All content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice