Commonwealth v. Peck,

242 A.3d 1274 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

James Hunt returned home from work and spoke with his son Kevin before going to bed. The next morning, Hunt left for work without seeing Kevin. When he returned that evening, he noticed that the door to Kevin's room was locked. After unlocking the door, he discovered Kevin's lifeless body on the floor. State Trooper Grothey found a 'rock' of heroin on the nightstand and Kevin's cell phone on the floor, near Kevin's body. On the cell phone were text messages between Kevin and D. These messages indicated that on the prior evening Kevin met D approximately ten miles south of Pennsylvania's border in Maryland, where D sold the rock of heroin to Kevin. Between 11:36 and 11:47 p.m. Kevin ingested the heroin at his home in Pennsylvania and thanked D for it by messaging him. D was arrested and charged with delivery of a controlled substance and with DDRD. DDRD is defined as follows: A person commits a felony of the first degree if the person intentionally administers, dispenses, delivers, gives, prescribes, sells, or distributes any controlled substance or counterfeit controlled substance in violation of section 13(a)(14) or (30) of the Act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), and another person dies as a result of using the substance. D sought dismissal of Count One because it requires that the drug delivery must occur 'within the Commonwealth,' and this drug delivery occurred in Maryland. P conceded this point and the trial court dismissed the charge. A jury found D guilty of DDRD. The trial court concluded that just because the drug delivery occurred in Maryland, any determination that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of DDRD 'was absurd, and would lead to a result the Legislature did not intend.' On appeal, D argued that because the drug delivery occurred in Maryland, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for DDRD. The appellate court reasoned that 'Section 102 clearly establishes that acts occurring outside of Pennsylvania may be subject to criminal prosecution in Pennsylvania.' The court concluded that even if the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict D of the delivery under Section 102, P still established the sufficiency of the evidence of a drug delivery resulting in death. D appealed.