acquisition requirement

Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit

Accordingly, the joint-user defense applied and the court upheld dismissal of the felony

murder charges.184

The New Jersey Supreme Court's multi-factor “fact-sensitive” test for determining

whether users simultaneously acquired possession appears to take a similar approach.185

Although physical presence was one of the factors in the New Jersey Supreme Court’s

test, it was not described as a necessary condition for the defense to apply. Moreover, the

other factors—particularly “whether one party had sole possession of the controlled

dangerous substance for any significant length of time”—suggest that users who pool

their money to buy drugs to use shortly after the purchase might qualify for the defense,

regardless of whether both were physically present at the sale.186

3. Arguments in support of a broad application of the simultaneous acquisition requirement

In cases where a defendant seeks to raise a joint-user defense, the scope of the

simultaneous acquisition/possession rule is likely to be a key point of contention. Most

184 Anumber of courts have read Carithers to represent a broad application of the joint-user rule in comparison to cases like Wright. Arecent Minnesota appeals court decision, however, read Carithers narrowly and suggested it may apply only to spouses who jointly purchase drugs. See State v. Schnagl, 907 N.W.2d 188, 199 (Minn. Ct.App. 2017) (“The aforementioned cases indicate that the holding in Carithers is narrow, and the existence of a marriage relationship is an important element in establishing joint acquisition and possession for purposes of a defense. ”).

185 Morrison, 902A.2d at 870.

186 Morrison, 902A.2d at 870 (citation omitted).

58

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