Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Sixth Circuit Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Sixth Circuit Blog

Court holds that no "proximate cause" required to be proven in death overdose case

ADVERTISEMENTS

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(c), a defendant's statutory sentencing range is increased from 0-20 years to 20 years to life if "death or injury results from the use of such substance." The question raised in United States v. Jeffries 18-4081 was: does the Government have to prove proximate cause between the defendant's actions and the death? In a In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit held that no such proximate cause is necessary.

Relying on the term "results from," as well as an interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014), the Court found that

Section 841(b)(1)(C) is merely the penalty tied to the conduct proscribed in § 841(a)(1). It does not speak to the defendant?s conduct or the general causal connection between § 841(a)(1) and the death. The penalty provision speaks only to the specific connection between the use of the drugs distributed by the defendant and the death that resulted from that use.

The Court further determined that the mens rea for this statute is specifically limited to the distribution element of the offense.

Judge Donald provided a strong dissent from the panel opinion, finding that the language of the statute in this regard was ambiguous, and therefore, the Rule of Lenity applied. Judge Donald further found that requiring proof of proximate cause, under these circumstances, would be consistent with traditional criminal law concepts.

Will there be future litigation on this topic and in this case? Please stay tuned!!!

Full post as published by Sixth Circuit Blog on May 11, 2020 (boomark / email).