Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit
Accordingly, the joint-user defense applied and the court upheld dismissal of the felony murder charges.184 The New Jersey Supreme Court's multi-factor “fact-sensitive” test for determining whether users simultaneously acquired possession appears to take a similar approach.185 Although physical presence was one of the factors in the New Jersey Supreme Court’s test, it was not described as a necessary condition for the defense to apply. Moreover, the other factors—particularly “whether one party had sole possession of the controlled dangerous substance for any significant length of time”—suggest that users who pool their money to buy drugs to use shortly after the purchase might qualify for the defense, regardless of whether both were physically present at the sale.186 3. Arguments in support of a broad application of the simultaneous acquisition requirement In cases where a defendant seeks to raise a joint-user defense, the scope of the simultaneous acquisition/possession rule is likely to be a key point of contention. Most
184
A number of courts have read Carithers to represent a broad application of the joint-user rule in comparison to cases like Wright. A recent Minnesota appeals court decision, however, read Carithers narrowly and suggested it may apply only to spouses who jointly purchase drugs. See State v. Schnagl, 907 N.W.2d 188, 199 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017) (“The aforementioned cases indicate that the holding in Carithers is narrow, and the existence of a marriage relationship is an important element in establishing joint acquisition and possession for purposes of a defense.”). 185
Morrison, 902 A.2d at 870.
186
Morrison, 902 A.2d at 870 (citation omitted).
Disclaimer: All content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice
58