b. Wisconsin

Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit

116 ● Commonwealth v. Kakhankham, 132 A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (holding Pennsylvania's DDRD statute is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness). ● Commonwealth v. Storey, 167 A.3d 750 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (rejecting defendant's argument that Pennsylvania's DDRD statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness when applied to someone other than the person the defendant originally sold the drugs to). ● Commonwealth v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (rejecting defendant's argument that Pennsylvania's DDRD statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness when applied to a death resulting from multiple drugs, when the use of other drugs was unknown to the defendant). ● Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (holding the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements and drug-related text messages that were not properly authenticated, but finding the errors harmless).

b. Wisconsin

● State v. Bannister, 302 Wis. 2d 158, 165 (2007) (providing an example of the state agreeing to drop the homicide charge in exchange for the defendant agreeing “not to object to evidence that an autopsy was done upon [the deceased] and that morphine was found in his body at the time of death”—also providing a discussion of the ‘corroboration rule’ where the defendant confesses). ● State v. Mattox, 373 Wis. 2d 12 (2017) (holding that “1) [a]n out-of-state toxicology report requested by a medical examiner as part of the routine autopsy protocol in a drug overdose death did not constitute testimonial evidence in the resulting homicide prosecution against the drug dealer who supplied the heroin responsible for the fatal overdose and its use at trial did not infringe on defendant’s confrontation right; 2) [that] [a]ll toxicology reports solely identifying the concentration of substances present in biological samples sent by the medical examiner were generally non-testimonial when requested by a medical examiner and not at the impetus of law enforcement; 3) [that] [t]he primary purpose of those toxicology reports was to provide information to the medical examiner

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