Can You Be Charged If a Friend Overdoses on Shared Drugs?

Yes, in Pennsylvania a person who shares drugs with a friend who then dies of an overdose can be charged with, and convicted of, drug delivery resulting in death. In October 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled in Commonwealth v. Cassell and Commonwealth v. Scott that jointly getting and using drugs is not a defense to the "delivery" element of that crime. The state still has to prove a delivery. The ruling interprets Pennsylvania law and applies in Pennsylvania.

What did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decide?

The court issued its majority opinion on October 13, 2026, in two appeals heard together. Justice McCaffery wrote it, and Justices Donohue, Dougherty, Mundy and Brobson joined it. Justice Wecht wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice Todd, agreeing only with the result. The main question was this. When two people jointly acquire and use drugs, and one of them dies, does their shared plan defeat the "delivery" element of drug delivery resulting in death (often shortened to DDRD) and of possession with intent to deliver (PWID)? The court said no, because the state's Drug Act "does not differentiate between drug dealers and co-users for purposes of delivery of illegal narcotics."

DDRD is a Pennsylvania crime defined in 18 Pa.C.S. 2506. A person commits a first-degree felony by intentionally delivering or giving a controlled substance (the statute lists other acts too) in violation of section 13(a)(14) or (30) of the Drug Act, when another person dies as a result of using it. The judge fixes a prison term of not more than 40 years. The opinion adds that the state does not have to prove the defendant meant to cause a death. It must prove an intentional delivery, plus recklessness about the death, meaning the death was "a natural or foreseeable consequence" of the defendant's conduct.

The court affirmed both judgments of sentence. As of October 2026, the state's highest court has ruled on what the Drug Act's definition of delivery covers in this situation. For background on the underlying offense, see our guide to drug trafficking and distribution charges.

What happened in the two cases?

In Cassell, Angelique Smith left a drug rehabilitation facility in Lancaster on October 22, 2020, with no money and no phone. She was in touch with Charles Cassell, who was 30 years older and called himself her "protector." He arranged an Uber ride for her to York and texted her asking if she wanted to use. He then contacted a dealer and drove to buy drugs. The two shared what they believed was heroin; blood testing later found only fentanyl. Cassell told police he let Smith take as much as she wanted. She became unresponsive, and he tried to revive her. He did not call for help or drive her to a hospital. Instead, the opinion says, he used the remaining drugs and drove around until he discarded the paraphernalia. He "finally called 911 about an hour later."

In Scott, Zack Savage and Melissa Wandell planned to buy heroin on June 28, 2019. Savage supplied the money. Jerrod Scott answered the phone when they called Wandell's usual dealer and said he could help them get drugs. Wandell handed the money to Scott, who passed it to a dealer. What they bought was fentanyl. At a park, Scott used first and began to overdose; Savage fetched Narcan from Scott's backpack and the two revived him. Savage then used a substantial amount himself and passed out. He was left in the back seat of the car overnight. The next morning Wandell could not feel a pulse, and paramedics could not revive him.

Detail	Cassell	Scott
Person who died	Angelique Smith	Zack Savage
DDRD and PWID verdicts	Guilty	Guilty
Third-degree murder	Guilty (not further addressed by the court)	Acquitted
Aggregate sentence stated in the opinion	23 and a half to 47 years	9 to 18 years, then one year of probation
Superior Court	Affirmed	Affirmed

The aggregate sentences cover every count, including those other than DDRD. In Cassell's trial, the opinion notes, the judge told the jury that malice (the mental state for third-degree murder) "can be inferred from the failure of the defendant to seek medical care for a victim." The Supreme Court did not decide the third-degree murder issue. See our guide to murder versus manslaughter for how those degrees differ.

Why did the court say sharing still counts as delivery?

The Drug Act defines "deliver" as a "transfer from one person to another" of a controlled substance, and the definition reaches actual transfers, constructive transfers and attempts, "whether or not there is an agency relationship." An actual transfer means one person physically hands drugs to another. A constructive transfer covers more. A dealer who directs an underling to make a sale commits one. The majority said a person also "may constructively deliver drugs to another when they intentionally facilitate the sale," acting as "a link in the chain of distribution." The opinion says that link "may be providing the funds for the drugs, or the transportation to the dealer."

Applying that, the majority found Cassell took "a more active role in instigating, financing, arranging [and] carrying-out the drug transaction." He paid for her ride, contacted the dealer and paid for the drugs. For Scott, the court said Wandell and Savage had a plan to buy together, but Scott was not part of it. He acted as an intermediary who got drugs from his dealer and handed them to Wandell, who was acting for Savage.

The two concurring justices did not accept the "link in the chain" reasoning. Justice Wecht agreed that joint acquisition and use does not negate the delivery element. But he wrote that "Giving someone a ride to a drug dealer's house is not a constructive transfer of a controlled substance. Neither is contributing money for the purchase." He would have upheld Cassell's conviction on a simpler ground: a jury could reasonably infer that Cassell physically handed Smith the fentanyl, which is an actual transfer.

The court also noted that criminal statutes are read strictly, and that an ambiguous provision is read "in the light most favorable to the accused." It decided these appeals under what it called the plain language of the provisions. It held the Commonwealth does not have to disprove joint acquisition and use, and a defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on it.

What about earlier cases that went the other way?

As the Pennsylvania opinion describes it, in United States v. Swiderski (2d Cir. 1977), a federal appeals court said that where two people "simultaneously and jointly acquire possession of a drug for their own use, intending only to share it together," their only crime is simple joint possession. In United States v. Semler, an unpublished 2021 decision, two judges of the Third Circuit agreed with that reasoning, and the third, Judge Porter, dissented in part and sharply criticized it. A Pennsylvania Superior Court judge expressed similar views in Commonwealth v. Brown, an unpublished 2023 memorandum, but the Supreme Court called that "non-binding dicta" and "the musing of a single judge."

The court noted that most courts that have looked at Swiderski distinguished it on its facts, and that few have fully adopted it. It then held that Pennsylvania's Drug Act does not allow the defense.

It wrote that the proposed defense "makes sense," because some believe drug dealers should be punished more harshly than drug users. But it said that kind of decision "is for the General Assembly, not the courts."

Is there an exception for a small amount of marijuana?

The Drug Act has a separate, lesser offense for "the distribution of a small amount of marihuana but not for sale," and the court called it "the one caveat" to its holding. Heroin and fentanyl have no such provision.

A footnote makes clear this is a lesser penalty, not a defense. The Act defines "distribute" as "to deliver," so sharing a small amount of marijuana is still a delivery. The court said it discussed the provision "solely to highlight the fact that if the legislature intended to craft a defense, or lesser penalty, for the 'delivery' of drugs between co-users, it would have done so explicitly."

Does Pennsylvania's overdose immunity law protect you?

Pennsylvania has a Drug Overdose Response Immunity section in the Drug Act, Section 13.7. It says a person "may not be charged and shall be immune from prosecution" for the offenses listed in its subsection (b) if the person can establish certain facts. Under one route, the person must have reported an overdose in good faith to police, 911, campus security or emergency services, on a reasonable belief that someone needed immediate medical attention. The person must also have provided their own name and location and cooperated with those responders. And the person must have remained with the person who needed help until police, campus security or emergency services personnel arrived.

The other route covers someone who took a person having an overdose to a health care facility or to a police or campus security office, when that is the only reason police learned of the offense. The person who overdosed can also be immune from the same listed charges when the person who helped them qualifies. The immunity does not bar charges for the listed offenses if police got the information before, or independent of, the call for help.

The listed offenses are probation and parole violations and violations of seven listed paragraphs of section 13(a). Among them are simple possession of a controlled substance (paragraph 16), possession of a small amount of marijuana (paragraph 31) and paraphernalia offenses (paragraphs 32 and 33). Neither of the two Drug Act provisions that DDRD refers to, section 13(a)(14) and section 13(a)(30), is on the list.

The text is explicit on the point. Subsection (d)(2) says the section "may not interfere with or prevent the investigation, arrest, charging or prosecution of a person for the delivery or distribution of a controlled substance, drug-induced homicide or any other crime not set forth in subsection (b)." So, by its own words, the immunity law does not shield anyone from a delivery or drug-induced homicide charge.

How does federal law treat a death after drugs are shared?

Federal law makes it unlawful to distribute a controlled substance, and the federal definitions say "distribute" means "to deliver (other than by administering or dispensing)" a controlled substance. The federal definition of "deliver" uses nearly the same words as Pennsylvania's, including the phrase "whether or not there exists an agency relationship."

When death results, the federal penalty rises. For the substances covered by 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C), the statute says that "if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance" the sentence is "not less than twenty years or more than life." A prior felony drug conviction that has become final raises that to life imprisonment. In Burrage v. United States (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that, at least where the drug is not an independently sufficient cause of death, the enhancement requires proof that the drug was a but-for cause of the death. The Pennsylvania ruling interprets only the Pennsylvania statute, so it does not decide how federal courts treat the same facts.

What should you do if a friend overdoses?

1. Call 911 right away. Give your own name and location, and cooperate with the dispatcher and responders. Those are among the conditions the immunity law lists.
2. Stay with the person until police or emergency responders arrive, and follow the dispatcher's instructions. The opinion describes naloxone (sold as Narcan) as "a medicine that rapidly reverses an opioid overdose" and says it can be bought over the counter at a pharmacy. If you have it, ask the dispatcher whether to use it.
3. Do not wait. In Cassell, the judge told the jury that malice can be inferred from failing to seek medical care for a victim, and the jury convicted him of third-degree murder.
4. Do not throw anything away or hide it. Cassell was also charged with, and convicted of, tampering with evidence.
5. If police later want to ask where the drugs came from, you can ask for a lawyer before answering. The immunity law says it does not bar the use of evidence in prosecutions it does not cover. See our guides on the right to remain silent and on whether police can question you without a lawyer present.
6. Speak with a licensed criminal defense lawyer in your state about your specific facts.

Does this ruling apply outside Pennsylvania?

No. A state supreme court decides the meaning of its own state's laws, and this ruling interprets Pennsylvania statutes for Pennsylvania courts. Other states' drug-death laws vary, and their courts may treat shared use differently. The federal system has its own rules. If this issue affects you, look up your own state's drug delivery and drug-induced death statutes on your legislature's official website.

This is general information, not legal advice. Rules vary by state, so check the official source or a licensed attorney in your state.