INTRODUCTION

Jesse Carrillo and Eric Sinacori were students at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Both men were experienced intravenous heroin users who suffered from opiate addictions (Tr. 4:131-134). On October 3, 2013, the two men agreed on a plan -- that Mr. Carrillo would drive to his longtime dealer to purchase heroin with their collective money and, upon his return, they would divide the product for their personal use (Tr. 4:136- 137). Mr. Sinacori tracked Mr. Carrillo's drive, regularly checking on his whereabouts and expected arrival time by sending text messages (Tr. 4:138-139). Upon Mr. Carrillo's return, the two men got together, divided the heroin, and used their own portions (Tr. 4:137). Later that night, Mr. Sinacori died of an accidental, drug-related overdose (Tr: 4:141).

Based on the events leading up to Mr. Sinacori's accidental death, the Commonwealth charged Mr. Carrillo with drug distribution and involuntary manslaughter, arguing that he was criminally liable for the accidental overdose. The judge declined to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple drug possession by joint venture. The jury subsequently convicted Mr. Carrillo on the two charged counts.

For the reasons discussed in this brief, the convictions should be reversed, and Mr. Carrillo granted a new trial. First, based on all of the circumstances, including Mr. Carrillo's personal experience with heroin addiction and what he knew of Mr. Sinacori's drug use, his conduct was not wanton or reckless and therefore fails to substantiate an involuntary manslaughter conviction. Second, both Mr. Carrillo and Mr. Sinacori were criminally liable for joint venture possession based on the mutually planned drug transaction carried out by Mr. Carrillo with their collective money. The judge therefore erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of simple drug possession. Third, prosecutions of individuals like Mr. Carrillo, who purchase drugs on behalf of themselves and co-users, undermine life-saving public health initiatives, such as naloxone distribution and Good Samaritan laws, putting more rather fewer lives at risk.

In passing G.L. c. 94C, §32, the Legislature intended to target "dealers" and "traffickers," not people like Mr. Carrillo who suffer from addiction and purchase drugs on behalf of themselves and friends for personal use. This Court should hold that the sharing of drugs between two individuals suffering from severe substance use disorder does not rise to the level of wanton or reckless conduct. The result of holding that heroin, in and of itself, automatically creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result is to transform the law of involuntary manslaughter into a strict liability crime. Considering that the Legislature has thus far rejected a felony drug-induced homicide law, see S. 2158 (2017), this Court should avoid establishing a de facto drug-induced homicide provision. Moreover, in the context of the current opioid crisis, allowing each accidental overdose to be prosecuted as a potentially strict liability crime has consequences that reach far beyond the scope of the case at bar, putting more lives at risk rather than fewer.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether the evidence warranted a finding that the defendant's distribution of heroin to the deceased was wanton or reckless in the circumstances of this case, thus justifying the defendant's conviction of involuntary manslaughter.

2. Where it was alleged that the defendant procured heroin for the deceased, a college classmate, and the defendant was charged on that basis with distributing the heroin to the victim, whether the judge erred in declining to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of simple possession for personal use based on a joint venture.

INTRODUCTION

Jesse Carrillo and Eric Sinacori were students at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Both men had a history of intravenous heroin use and struggled with opiate addictions. On October 3, 2013, they agreed on a plan: Mr. Carrillo would drive to his usual dealer to purchase heroin using their combined money. Upon his return, they would divide the drug for their personal use. Mr. Sinacori tracked Mr. Carrillo's journey by regularly sending text messages to check on his location and estimated arrival. When Mr. Carrillo returned, the two men met, divided the heroin, and each used their portion. Later that same night, Mr. Sinacori died from an accidental, drug-related overdose.

Based on these events, the Commonwealth charged Mr. Carrillo with drug distribution and involuntary manslaughter, asserting his criminal responsibility for the accidental overdose. The trial judge chose not to instruct the jury on the lesser charge of simple drug possession by joint venture. The jury subsequently found Mr. Carrillo guilty of both counts.

This brief argues that the convictions should be reversed, and Mr. Carrillo granted a new trial. First, his conduct, considered in light of his own and Mr. Sinacori's heroin addiction, was not wanton or reckless, and thus insufficient to support an involuntary manslaughter conviction. Second, both individuals were criminally liable for joint venture possession due to their shared plan for the drug transaction, meaning the judge erred by not instructing the jury on this lesser offense. Lastly, prosecuting individuals like Mr. Carrillo, who acquire drugs for personal use with co-users, counters public health efforts aimed at saving lives, potentially increasing overall risk. The Legislature intended to target "dealers" and "traffickers" with drug laws, not individuals struggling with addiction who share drugs among themselves. Interpreting involuntary manslaughter to include such circumstances could transform it into a strict liability crime, effectively creating a drug-induced homicide law that the Legislature has not adopted, which could have serious negative consequences during the current opioid crisis.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Did the evidence justify finding Mr. Carrillo's provision of heroin to the deceased as wanton or reckless in this specific situation, thereby supporting his involuntary manslaughter conviction?

2. Did the judge make an error by not instructing the jury on the lesser charge of simple possession for personal use based on a joint venture, given the allegation that Mr. Carrillo obtained heroin for the deceased, a fellow student, and was charged with distributing it on that basis?

INTRODUCTION

Jesse Carrillo and Eric Sinacori, both students at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, were individuals with opiate addictions who used heroin intravenously. On October 3, 2013, they planned for Mr. Carrillo to buy heroin from his dealer using their shared money. Mr. Sinacori monitored Mr. Carrillo's location and estimated return time via text messages. After Mr. Carrillo's return, the two men divided the heroin and used their portions. Later that same night, Mr. Sinacori died from an accidental, drug-related overdose.

Following Mr. Sinacori's death, the Commonwealth accused Mr. Carrillo of drug distribution and involuntary manslaughter, asserting his criminal responsibility for the overdose. The judge chose not to instruct the jury on simple drug possession by joint venture as a less serious, related charge. The jury later found Mr. Carrillo guilty of both offenses.

The argument presented in this brief is that Mr. Carrillo's convictions should be overturned, and a new trial granted. The reasons are as follows: First, considering Mr. Carrillo's own history with heroin addiction and his awareness of Mr. Sinacori's drug use, his actions did not show the wanton or reckless conduct required for an involuntary manslaughter conviction. Second, both men were equally responsible for simple drug possession under a joint venture, based on their shared plan and use of collective money for the purchase. Therefore, the judge's failure to instruct the jury on this lesser offense was an error. Third, prosecuting individuals like Mr. Carrillo, who buy drugs for themselves and others for personal use, can hinder critical public health efforts, such as the distribution of naloxone and Good Samaritan laws, potentially increasing, rather than decreasing, risks to life. The Legislature's intent behind G.L. c. 94C, §32 was to target drug dealers and traffickers, not individuals suffering from addiction who buy drugs for personal use with friends. Interpreting drug sharing between people with severe substance use disorder as wanton or reckless conduct risks turning involuntary manslaughter into a strict liability crime, which is contrary to the Legislature's previous rejections of drug-induced homicide laws. Such an approach could have broad, detrimental consequences during the current opioid crisis, potentially endangering more lives.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Did the evidence adequately demonstrate that Mr. Carrillo's distribution of heroin to the deceased was wanton or reckless in this situation, thereby supporting the involuntary manslaughter conviction?

Given that Mr. Carrillo was accused of obtaining heroin for a college classmate and charged with its distribution, did the judge make a mistake by not instructing the jury on the lesser offense of simple possession for personal use under a joint venture?

INTRODUCTION

Jesse Carrillo and Eric Sinacori, both students at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, were individuals who struggled with opioid addiction and regularly used heroin intravenously. On October 3, 2013, they agreed that Mr. Carrillo would drive to his long-time dealer to buy heroin with their shared money. When he returned, they planned to divide the heroin for their own personal use. Mr. Sinacori tracked Mr. Carrillo's trip by sending text messages to check on his location and expected arrival time. Upon Mr. Carrillo's return, the two men met, divided the heroin, and used their individual portions. Later that night, Mr. Sinacori died from an accidental, drug-related overdose.

Following these events, the Commonwealth charged Mr. Carrillo with drug distribution and involuntary manslaughter, arguing that he was legally responsible for the accidental overdose. The judge decided not to instruct the jury on the lesser charge of simple drug possession, which could have applied if the drugs were for joint personal use. The jury subsequently found Mr. Carrillo guilty of both charges.

The convictions should be overturned, and Mr. Carrillo should receive a new trial. First, considering all circumstances, including Mr. Carrillo's personal experience with heroin addiction and his knowledge of Mr. Sinacori's drug use, his actions were not extremely careless or dangerous enough to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. Second, both Mr. Carrillo and Mr. Sinacori were legally responsible for joint drug possession based on their shared plan to buy drugs with their combined money, which Mr. Carrillo carried out. Therefore, the judge made a mistake by not instructing the jury on the lesser charge of simple drug possession. Third, prosecuting individuals like Mr. Carrillo, who buy drugs for themselves and others for personal use, harms public health efforts that save lives, such as the distribution of naloxone (a drug to reverse overdose) and Good Samaritan laws. This approach puts more lives at risk, not fewer. The legislature intended for G.L. c. 94C, §32, to target drug dealers and traffickers, not people like Mr. Carrillo who struggle with addiction and purchase drugs for themselves and friends for personal use. Allowing the sharing of drugs between two individuals with severe substance use disorder to be considered extremely careless or dangerous would turn involuntary manslaughter into a strict liability crime (where someone is guilty simply for an action, regardless of intent). Since the legislature has so far rejected a law making drug-induced deaths a felony, the Court should avoid creating a similar rule without it being formally passed as law. In the context of the current opioid crisis, allowing every accidental overdose to be prosecuted as a potentially strict liability crime has consequences far beyond this specific case, potentially endangering more lives rather than saving them.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Was there enough evidence to find that the defendant's act of giving heroin to the deceased was extremely careless or dangerous under the circumstances, thereby justifying the defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter?

2. When it was claimed that the defendant obtained heroin for the deceased, a college classmate, and the defendant was charged with distributing heroin to the victim based on this, did the judge make a mistake by not telling the jury about the lesser charge of simple possession for personal use based on a joint venture?

INTRODUCTION

Jesse Carrillo and Eric Sinacori were students at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Both men used heroin and struggled with addiction. On October 3, 2013, they made a plan. Jesse would drive to his regular dealer to buy heroin using money they both put in. When he returned, they would divide the heroin for their own use. Eric kept track of Jesse's trip, sending text messages to check on him. When Jesse came back, the two men met, split the heroin, and each used their share. Later that night, Eric died by accident from a drug overdose.

Because of what happened before Eric's death, the state charged Jesse with selling drugs and causing Eric's death. The judge did not tell the jury they could find Jesse guilty of a less serious crime, such as just having drugs together for personal use. The jury then found Jesse guilty of both charges: selling drugs and causing Eric's death.

For these reasons, Jesse's convictions should be overturned, and he should get a new trial. First, Jesse's actions were not careless or dangerous enough to cause Eric's death. This is especially true because Jesse himself struggled with heroin addiction and knew Eric did too. Second, Jesse and Eric planned to buy drugs together and used their shared money. They were both responsible for having the drugs. The judge should have told the jury about the simpler charge of just having drugs for personal use together. Third, prosecuting people like Jesse, who buy drugs for themselves and friends, makes it harder to help people and save lives. It works against programs that give out life-saving medicine like Narcan or protect people who call for help during an overdose.

The original law was made to stop big drug dealers, not people like Jesse who have an addiction and buy drugs for themselves and friends. This court should say that sharing drugs between two people with serious addiction should not be treated as a highly dangerous act that causes death. Making every overdose a possible death crime would be too strict and dangerous in today's drug crisis. It could put more lives at risk instead of saving them.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Was there enough proof that Jesse acted carelessly or dangerously when he gave heroin to Eric, which led to Jesse being found guilty of causing Eric's death?

2. Jesse was charged with giving heroin to Eric, a college classmate. The court claimed he bought the heroin for Eric. Did the judge make a mistake by not telling the jury they could find Jesse guilty of just having drugs for personal use, because they bought it together?