MANSLAUGHER:               NOT GUILTY

In 2015, Defendant was charged with Manslaughter (G.L. c. 265, §13) for allegedly selling heroin to a middle-man, the middle-man distributed the heroin to a victim, and the victim consumed the heroin and died of a drug overdose. Manslaughter requires proof that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin was wanton and reckless and that his act of selling heroin was the cause of the victim’s death. At this time in 2015, there was case law and precedent in Massachusetts finding that a Defendant’s sale of heroin was wanton and reckless so as to support a charge of Manslaughter.  In 2016, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Defendant’s act of selling heroin to a middle-man was not wanton and reckless and was insufficient to support the Manslaughter charge. Attorney Noonan argued that the case law in the Commonwealth was outdated. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is no per se rule finding that the sale of heroin, by itself, was sufficient to convict a Defendant of Manslaughter. Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth must present evidence, in addition to the sale of heroin, to establish wanton and reckless conduct, such as: the potency of the heroin, the quantity of the heroin, and the Defendant’s knowledge regarding the victim (such as the victim’s prior drug use, prior overdoses, vulnerability, etc.) In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the Manslaughter charge because: the potency of the heroin was weak; the heroin was not laced with any other substances increasing the risk of overdose; the quantity of the heroin was small (consistent with personal use); and the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell directly to the victim. The Motion to Dismiss was denied.

At trial, Defendant was represented by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Brendan J. Noonan. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty; echoing the arguments that were raised in his pretrial Motion to Dismiss and applying the facts presented at trial. In his Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty, Attorney Noonan argued that the Commonwealth merely presented evidence that the Defendant sold heroin which, by itself, was not sufficient to convict him of Manslaughter. First, Attorney Noonan pointed out that the heroin was of low-strength.  In particular, the heroin was only 24% pure and weaker than the average dose of heroin on the street. A DEA Chemist testified at trial that the average street level strength of heroin is between 20% – 60%, placing the Defendant’s heroin at the weak end of the spectrum. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the heroin was not laced with any other substances, such as Fentanyl, which would increase the risk of an overdose. Third, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant sold a small quantity of heroin consistent with personal use. Fourth, Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not even know the victim and did not sell the heroin directly to her but instead sold the heroin to a middle-man. The trial judge denied Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Defendant was convicted of Manslaughter on April 6, 2018.

While the Defendant’s appeal was pending, there was a similar appeal pending before the Supreme Judicial Court where a Defendant had been convicted of Manslaughter for selling heroin to the victim. In this related appeal, (Commonwealth v. Jesse Carrillo), the Defendant (Carrillo) was raising the same arguments that the Noonan’s raised in their pretrial Motion to Dismiss and in their Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty at trial. The Defendant’s appeal was stayed (or put on hold) until the SJC made a decision in Carrillo. On October 3, 2019, the SJC in Carrillo held that: As an issue of first impression, evidence that the Defendant transferred heroin to the victim, without more, was insufficient to support a Manslaughter conviction. Given the SJC’s new decision, it was clear that the Defendant’s conviction should be overturned. The Defendant sought a highly skilled appellate attorney who fought hard on his behalf. Following the SJC’s decision in Carrillo, Defendant’s appellate attorney renewed Attorney Noonan’s Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty. The District Attorney’s Office assented to (or agreed) to the Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty and the Trial Judge entered a finding of Not Guilty.