571 U.S. 204, 134 S. Ct. 881, 187 L. Ed. 2d 715 (2013)
Joshua Banka, a long-time drug user, died on April 15, 2010, following an extended drug binge that began the morning of April 14 when he smoked marijuana at a former roommate's home.1
Banka stole oxycodone pills from the roommate before departing.2 He later crushed, cooked, and injected the oxycodone.3 Banka and his wife, Tammy Noragon Banka, then met with petitioner Marcus Burrage and purchased one gram of heroin from him.4
Banka immediately cooked and injected some of the heroin.5 After returning home, he injected more heroin between midnight and 1 a.m. on April 15.6 Noragon went to sleep at around 5 a.m., shortly after witnessing Banka prepare another batch of heroin.7 When Noragon woke up a few hours later, she found Banka dead in the bathroom and called 911.8
A search of the couple's home and car turned up syringes, 0.59 grams of heroin, alprazolam and clonazepam tablets, oxycodone pills, a bottle of hydrocodone, and other drugs.9 Burrage pleaded not guilty to a superseding indictment alleging two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1).10 Only one of those offenses, count 2, is at issue here.11 Count 2 alleged that Burrage unlawfully distributed heroin on April 14, 2010, and that death resulted from the use of that substance.12
At trial, forensic toxicologist Dr. Eugene Schwilke determined that multiple drugs were present in Banka's system at the time of his death, including heroin metabolites, codeine, alprazolam, clonazepam metabolites, and oxycodone.13 Although morphine was the only drug present at a level above the therapeutic range, Dr. Schwilke could not say whether Banka would have lived had he not taken the heroin.14 Dr. Schwilke nonetheless concluded that heroin was a contributing factor in Banka's death.15 Iowa state medical examiner Dr. Jerri McLemore came to similar conclusions.16 She described the cause of death as mixed drug intoxication with heroin, oxycodone, alprazolam, and clonazepam all playing a contributing role.17 Dr. McLemore could not say whether Banka would have lived had he not taken the heroin.18
The District Court denied Burrage's motion for a judgment of acquittal.19 The court also declined to give Burrage's proposed jury instructions regarding causation.20 The court instead gave an instruction requiring the Government to prove that the heroin distributed by the Defendant was a contributing cause of Joshua Banka's death.21 The jury convicted Burrage on both counts, and the court sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment.22 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Burrage's convictions.23 The Supreme Court granted certiorari on two questions concerning the causation requirement under the death results provision.24
Whether the defendant may be convicted under the death results provision when the use of the controlled substance was a contributing cause of the death?25
The phrase 'results from' in 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(C) imposes a but-for causation requirement, meaning the government must prove that the victim would not have died but for the use of the drug distributed by the defendant.26
No. Forensic toxicologist Dr. Eugene Schwilke testified that heroin was a contributing factor in Banka's death through interaction with other drugs.27 He could not say whether Banka would have lived without the heroin.28 Iowa state medical examiner Dr. Jerri McLemore similarly described the cause of death as mixed drug intoxication to which heroin contributed.29 She could not determine whether Banka would have survived absent the heroin.30 The district court denied Burrage's motion for judgment of acquittal.31 The court instructed the jury that the government need only prove the heroin was a contributing cause of death.32
This resulted in conviction and a 20-year sentence under the enhancement.33 This contributing-cause theory fails to satisfy the but-for standard demanded by the statute's ordinary meaning and precedents interpreting similar causal language.34
The defendant may not be convicted under the death results provision when the use of the controlled substance was merely a contributing cause of the death.35
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Sotomayor
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, concurred in the judgment.36 She explained that she does not read 'because of' in the context of antidiscrimination laws to mean 'solely because of.'37 She does not agree that words appearing in two or more legal rules must have precisely the same scope in all of them.38
Nevertheless, she agreed that in the interpretation of a criminal statute subject to the rule of lenity, where there is room for debate, one should not choose the construction that disfavors the defendant.39
Whether the jury must be separately instructed that it must decide whether the victim's death by drug overdose was a foreseeable result of the defendant's drug-trafficking offense?40
The Controlled Substances Act's death results provision requires proof of actual causation, and the Court found it necessary to decide only that question rather than addressing proximate cause or foreseeability.41
No. The Supreme Court determined it was necessary to decide only whether the use of heroin was the actual cause of Banka's death in the sense required by the statute.42 The Court explicitly stated it need not address the second question on which certiorari was granted concerning a separate foreseeability instruction.43 The Eighth Circuit had rejected Burrage's proposed proximate cause instructions.44
The Court did not reach or resolve whether the jury must be separately instructed on foreseeability as a proximate cause element.45