Pennsylvania Can Charge a Friend Who Shared Drugs Like a Dealer After an Overdose

If a friend or partner died after the two of you used drugs together in Pennsylvania, prosecutors can charge you with drug delivery resulting in death (DDRD), the same first-degree felony used against dealers. On Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made that clear. All seven justices agreed that people who buy and use drugs together have no "joint acquisition and use" defense, and that defendants have no right to ask a jury to consider that theory.

The ruling came in two consolidated cases, Commonwealth v. Cassell and Commonwealth v. Scott (Nos. 22 and 23 MAP 2025), according to a case summary by the Philadelphia defense firm Goldstein Mehta LLC and reporting by Spotlight PA. Below: what the court decided, what the charge carries, what the Good Samaritan law does and does not protect, and what someone facing this charge should do now.

What the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided

The court upheld DDRD convictions in both cases. According to Goldstein Mehta, the holding has three parts:

• Two people who jointly buy and use drugs have no defense to the "delivery" element of DDRD or possession with intent to deliver (PWID).

• The Commonwealth does not have to disprove joint acquisition and use.

• A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on that theory.

Justice Daniel McCaffery wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy and P. Kevin Brobson, Spotlight PA reported. The majority said state law has a broad definition of "delivery" that "does not differentiate between drug dealers and co-users for purposes of delivery of illegal narcotics."

The legal reasoning rests on two points. First, the Drug Act defines delivery as "the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance," as quoted by Goldstein Mehta. Handing a friend part of what you bought together fits that language. Second, the legislature did write a co-user exception, but only for small amounts of marijuana under 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31). "The fact the General Assembly limited this exception to possession of a small amount of marijuana speaks volumes," the majority wrote, according to the firm.

McCaffery acknowledged the argument on the other side. He wrote that the "proposed defense makes sense" and that "some believe drug dealers should be punished more harshly than drug users," according to WITF's publication of the Spotlight PA wire story. "Nevertheless, this type of policy determination is for the General Assembly, not the courts."

The defendants had relied on two federal appeals decisions, United States v. Swiderski (2d Cir. 1977) and United States v. Semler (3d Cir. 2021), to request a joint-acquisition instruction. Both trial courts refused, and the Superior Court affirmed, Goldstein Mehta reported.

The concurrence: wrong result in spirit, but the text controls

Justice David Wecht, joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd, agreed with the outcome but said plainly that the law sweeps in people it was not aimed at. "It is undoubtedly true that the DDRD statute was meant to target drug dealers, not drug users," Wecht wrote, according to WITF. He added that "the spirit of the law is in considerable tension with its text," but "it is the latter that binds us." And: "The General Assembly does not violate the Constitution when it violates common sense."

For defendants, that concurrence matters as a signal. Two members of the state's highest court have said the statute catches co-users the legislature likely never meant to target. They also said the courts will not fix it.

Who gets charged: the two cases

Cassell (York County). According to Goldstein Mehta, a woman named Smith had just left a rehab facility and asked her boyfriend, Cassell, for a ride. He paid for an Uber, texted a dealer that he had $40, and drove to the dealer's house. They used together twice, and Smith overdosed. Cassell did not call 911 for about an hour. Spotlight PA reported in September that Smith was 23 and died of a fentanyl overdose a day after leaving a drug rehabilitation facility. "I did CPR twice on this young girl, and I'm not a predator," Cassell told Spotlight PA.

A York County jury convicted Cassell of third-degree murder, DDRD, PWID and related charges. His sentence: 23.5 to 47 years. Goldstein Mehta notes the trial court told the jury it could infer malice for the murder charge from his failure to seek medical care, not from the delivery itself.

Scott. According to Goldstein Mehta, two men, Wandell and Savage, planned to buy heroin, and Savage paid. Scott, the dealer's son, got the drugs in Harrisburg and handed them over. Spotlight PA reported that Scott overdosed and Savage revived him with an overdose reversal drug. Savage "then used drugs himself, passed out, and struck his head on pavement while Scott carried him back to the car." Savage died the next morning. The jury acquitted Scott of third-degree murder but convicted him of DDRD and PWID. He was sentenced to 9 to 18 years.

The court found the evidence sufficient in both cases: Cassell controlled the purchase and the amounts, and Scott acted as a go-between, according to the firm's summary.

These are not unusual prosecutions. Spotlight PA reported in July 2026 that the statute "doesn't distinguish between defendants who are kingpins, street-level dealers, or fellow users." DDRD cases "were filed more than 680 times from 2021 through 2025," and "prosecution rates vary widely between counties," with York County "consistently outpacing some counties with higher populations." Convictions were rare before 2011 and reached a "recent annual high of around 100 in 2019," according to Spotlight PA.

York County District Attorney Tim Barker said the evidence in these cases was "well beyond any characterization of a minimal 'sharing' of drugs," according to WITF. He said his office "will always seek accountability for criminal conduct that harms victims, especially when the actions cause the death of another," and pursues "rehabilitation and diversion where appropriate." Defense attorney Anthony Tambourino argued the law was "not meant to criminalize every drug handoff among co-users."

What a drug delivery resulting in death charge carries

Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506, a person commits a first-degree felony if they intentionally administer, dispense, deliver, give, prescribe, sell or distribute a controlled substance in violation of the Drug Act and another person dies as a result of using it. The court may impose up to 40 years in prison.

Prosecutors can also pair DDRD with other charges. In Cassell, third-degree murder and PWID were part of the conviction. In Scott, the jury rejected murder but still convicted on DDRD and PWID.

Defenses that may remain

The ruling closes one door. It does not close every one. These are arguments to raise with a lawyer, not guarantees.

• Causation. The statute requires that the person died "as a result of using" the substance. Toxicology, the presence of other drugs, and the timeline of use all bear on whether the state can prove that link.

• Intent. The statute requires an intentional delivery, giving, or distribution.

• Sufficiency in true joint purchases. Goldstein Mehta says room may remain for a sufficiency challenge where two people genuinely bought drugs together on equal terms. In both decided cases, the court pointed to one defendant controlling the purchase or acting as a go-between.

• The "link in the chain" language. The court borrowed the phrase "link in the chain of distribution" from Swiderski to describe a person who intentionally facilitates a sale. Goldstein Mehta's view: "That language is largely dicta, however, and may not be binding on future cases."

• Timing. Under current law, DDRD has a two-year statute of limitations, Spotlight PA reported.

What Pennsylvania's Good Samaritan law does and doesn't do

Pennsylvania's overdose immunity law, 35 P.S. § 780-113.7, protects a person who in good faith reports an overdose to police, 911, campus security or emergency services, gives their name and location, cooperates, and stays with the person until help arrives. It also covers someone who takes the overdosing person to police, campus security or a health care facility. The person who overdosed gets the same protection.

But the immunity is narrow. It covers only listed possession-type offenses and probation or parole violations. It does not bar prosecution for delivery or distribution, drug-induced homicide, unlisted crimes, or cases where police got the information independently of the call for help.

That does not make calling 911 pointless from a legal standpoint. In Cassell, the hour-long delay in calling was the basis the jury was told it could use to infer malice for third-degree murder. Goldstein Mehta says calling 911 can still affect murder exposure and sentencing.

Critics of the ruling worry people will hesitate anyway. "It is unthinkable that joint drug use can be made a homicide," said C. Melissa Owen, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, according to WITF. "We anticipate this ruling will further discourage individuals from seeking help during an overdose," she said, "causing the very harm the law purports to prevent."

The fix is with the legislature, and it's moving the other way

The majority sent the policy question to the General Assembly. The pending bills mostly expand prosecutors' reach rather than narrow it.

• Rep. Dane Watro's bill would extend the DDRD statute of limitations from two years to five, according to his July 7, 2026 release. Citing the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, the release says that from 2024 to 2025, "DDRD charges decreased by 22% and convictions decreased by 72%."

• A Senate bill would also set a five-year limit, Spotlight PA reports.

• Rep. Clint Owlett's bill would eliminate the limit for overdose deaths, but would create a defense for people who don't "receive any service or anything of value in exchange," according to Spotlight PA.

As of early July 2026, all three were awaiting committee action, Spotlight PA reported. The Owlett proposal is the only one that would carve out a defense resembling what the defendants asked the court for, and it comes paired with removing the time limit entirely.

If you or someone you love is facing this charge

• Don't explain who bought, who paid, or who handed what to whom without a lawyer. Those facts are exactly what decided Cassell and Scott. Statements meant to show you were "just a user" can establish delivery.

• Preserve records. Texts, payment app history and ride receipts can show whether a purchase was truly joint and on equal terms, the scenario defense lawyers say may still support a sufficiency challenge. Give them to your attorney rather than deleting or sharing them.

• Ask about causation evidence. Request the toxicology report and medical examiner findings. Multiple substances or gaps in the timeline can matter.

• Ask about timing. Under current law the limitations period is two years. Bills to lengthen or remove it are pending, so confirm with counsel which rule applies to your case.

• Understand the murder exposure. If the state is also charging third-degree murder, what happened after the overdose, including whether and when help was called, may be central.

Related reading

• Can Prosecutors Withdraw a Plea Deal After You Accept It?

• Assault vs Battery: The Difference That Changes Your Charge

• Does Severe Mental Illness Make Someone Legally Insane in Ohio?

• What Colorado's Fentanyl Ballot Measure Would Change for a Possession Charge

• Prop 36 Drug Treatment Rarely Ends in a Dismissed Charge

• Which Hemp THC Products Become Federal Drug Crimes, and When?

• More Drug Offenses coverage

Sources

• PA Supreme Court rejects co-user defense in fatal overdose cases (Spotlight PA, Oct. 2026)

• High court rejects challenge to how Pa. treats users accused of supplying drugs in fatal overdoses (WITF, Spotlight PA wire)

• PA Supreme Court Rejects Joint Acquisition and Use Defense to Drug Delivery Resulting in Death (Goldstein Mehta LLC, Oct. 14, 2026)

• PA Supreme Court reviews drug overdose death charges (Spotlight PA, Sept. 2026)

• Pennsylvania overdose death prosecutions (Spotlight PA, July 2026)

• Watro: Statute of Limitations on Drug Deliveries that Result in Death Needs to Change (Rep. Dane Watro, July 7, 2026)

• 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506, Drug delivery resulting in death (FindLaw)

• 35 P.S. § 780-113.7, Drug overdose response immunity (FindLaw)

Note: This article contains AI-assisted content and has been reviewed by our editorial team.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: GavelDaily.com is an advertising and information service, not a law firm. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. The information you provide will be shared with licensed criminal defense attorneys in your area who may contact you about your inquiry. All submissions are treated as confidential by our service, but attorney-client privilege does not attach until you formally retain an attorney. Any attorney you connect with through this service is independently responsible for their legal advice and representation. Free consultations are subject to individual attorney availability. If you are facing an immediate legal emergency, contact your local public defender's office or call 911.