J-A20029-17
2018 PA Super 46
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHEILA MARIE LEWIS :
:
Appellant : No. 257 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 27, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0005227-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
OPINION BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 02, 2018
In this appeal, we interpret and apply the Drug Overdose Response
Immunity statute, 35 P.S. § 780-113.7 (the “Act”). In an effort to prevent
overdose deaths, the Legislature provided for immunity from prosecution for
certain crimes when a person has a reasonable belief someone is suffering
from an overdose and contacts local authorities. The Act provides this
immunity to both the reporter and the victim, so long as several conditions
are met.
At issue here is whether the statute applies to a person who
reasonably believed she herself had overdosed and contacted authorities
pursuant to this belief. We conclude that while the language of the statute
does not explicitly provide for immunity under these circumstances, denying
Lewis immunity in this case would frustrate the Legislature’s intent in
J-A20029-17
passing the Act. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order finding that
Appellant, Sheila Marie Lewis, is not entitled to immunity.
For purposes of this appeal, the facts of the case are undisputed. Lewis
called 911 from her hotel room reporting she had overdosed on prescription
pills. A police officer responded to the scene to assist Lewis until an
ambulance could arrive. While he was assisting Lewis in gathering the
prescription pills, he observed paraphernalia often utilized to smoke
marijuana. When questioned about the paraphernalia, Lewis admitted she
had used the items to smoke marijuana.
The ambulance took Lewis to a local hospital. The Commonwealth
subsequently charged her with possession of drug paraphernalia. Prior to her
bench trial, Lewis moved to have the charge dismissed, claiming immunity
to prosecution under the Act. The trial court denied her motion on two
grounds.
The court concluded self-reported overdose victims are not entitled to
immunity under the law. In addition, the court held Lewis did not need
immediate medical attention and therefore was not entitled to immunity
under the law. After hearing testimony, the court found Lewis guilty of
possession of drug paraphernalia and sentenced her to three months’
probation. Lewis filed this timely appeal.
Lewis argues the trial court erred in concluding she is not statutorily
immune from prosecution under the Act. As she concedes in her brief, this
-2-
J-A20029-17
issue raises a question of statutory interpretation. “A trial court’s application
of a statute is a question of law, and our standard of review is plenary.
Moreover, our review is limited to determining whether the trial court
committed an error of law.” Commonwealth v. Wall, 867 A.2d 578, 580
(Pa. Super. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In interpreting any statute, appellate courts must take note of
the principles of statutory interpretation and construction. The
principal objective of interpreting a statute is to effectuate the
intention of the legislature and give effect to all of the provisions
of the statute. In construing a statute to determine its meaning,
courts must first determine whether the issue may be resolved
by reference to the express language of the statute, which is to
be read according to the plain meaning of the words. When
analyzing particular words or phrases, we must construe them
according to rules of grammar and according to their common
and approved usage. Words of a statute are to be considered in
their grammatical context. Furthermore, we may not add
provisions that the General Assembly has omitted unless the
phrase is necessary to the construction of the statute. A
presumption also exists that the legislature placed every word,
sentence and provision in the statute for some purpose and
therefore courts must give effect to every word.
Commonwealth v. Morris, 958 A.2d 569, 578-579 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Lewis’s claim relies solely on the Act.1 The Legislature amended the
Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act by enacting the Drug
____________________________________________
1 The relevant language of the Act:
(a) A person may not be charged and shall be immune from
prosecution for any offense listed in subsection (b) and for
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-A20029-17
Overdose Response Immunity statute. The amendment passed in the face of
a burgeoning humanitarian crisis across the United States in general and
Pennsylvania in particular. In the United States as a whole, drug overdose
deaths “nearly tripled during 1999-2014.” Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl
L., Increases in Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Deaths — United States,
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
a violation of probation or parole if the person can
establish the following:
…
(1) all of the following apply:
(i) the person reported, in good faith, a drug
overdose event to a law enforcement officer, the
911 system, a campus security officer or
emergency services personnel and the report was
made on the reasonable belief that another
person was in need of immediate medical
attention and was necessary to prevent death or
serious bodily injury due to a drug overdose;
(ii) the person provided his own name and location
and cooperated with the law enforcement officer,
911 system, campus security officer or
emergency services personnel; and
(iii) the person remained with the person needing
immediate medical attention until a law
enforcement officer, a campus security officer or
emergency services personnel arrived.
(b) The prohibition on charging or prosecuting a person as
described in subsection (a) bars charging or prosecuting a
person for [a list of crimes including possession of drug
paraphernalia.]
(c) Persons experiencing drug overdose events may not be
charged and shall be immune from prosecution as provided
in subsection (b) if a person who transported or reported
and remained with them may not be charged and is
entitled to immunity under this section.
35 P.S. § 780-113.7.
-4-
J-A20029-17
2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016; 65:1445–1452, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm655051e1.htm?s_cid=mm6
55051e1_w, retrieved 1/23/18. From 1999 to 2010, Pennsylvania’s rate
nearly doubled. See Prescription Drug Abuse: Strategies to Stop the
Epidemic, available at http://healthyamericans.org/reports/drugabuse2013/,
retrieved 1/23/18. As of 2010, Pennsylvania’s drug overdose mortality rate
was 14th highest in the country. See id. After signing the Act into law, then-
Governor Tom Corbett observed, “[t]he bill I am signing today will save lives
and ensure those who help someone in need aren’t punished for doing so.”
Pa. Painkiller-Heroin Crisis: Corbett Signs Bill Intended to Save Lives,
available at
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/09/corbett_heroin_good_
samaritan.html, retrieved 1/23/18.
This public health crisis continues unabated. In fact, “[m]ore than
63,600 lives were lost to drug overdose in 2016, the most lethal year yet of
the drug overdose epidemic, according to … the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.” Opioids Now Kill More People Than Breast Cancer,
available at http://www.wfmz.com/health/opioids-now-kill-more-people-
than-breast-cancer/675807470, retrieved 2/21/18.
To achieve its intent of saving lives, the Act provides immunity from
prosecution for persons who call authorities to seek medical care for a
suspected overdose victim. Specifically, the Commonwealth may not
-5-
J-A20029-17
prosecute either the caller or the victim for minor narcotics infractions. This
immunity cannot be used to defeat prosecutions for ongoing investigations.
For instance, a person cannot gain immunity by calling 911 and reporting a
suspected overdose while police are knocking on the door to serve a search
warrant.
Furthermore, immunity is only granted when the reporter reasonably
believes medical attention is necessary. This requirement would further
restrict the ability of a defendant to utilize a timely 911 call to frustrate an
ongoing investigation. Other conditions on the grant of immunity include a
requirement that the reporter provide authorities with her real name, that
she stay with the subject of her report, and she cooperate fully with
authorities.
Under the appropriate circumstances, the reporter is rendered immune
from prosecution for minor drug offenses enumerated in the Act, including
possession of drug paraphernalia. Additionally, the suspected overdose
victim is granted immunity so long as the reporter has met all the conditions
necessary for immunity. See Commonwealth v. Carontenuto, 148 A.3d
448, 452 (Pa. Super. 2016). The suspected victim is granted immunity even
if authorities have no reason to believe the reporter committed any crime.
See id., at 452-453.
Thus, the Act is designed to save lives by sacrificing the enforcement
of minor narcotics criminal penalties. However, as noted, it does not
-6-
J-A20029-17
frustrate larger law enforcement goals. For example, if a narcotics
distribution operation were the subject of an extended investigation, the
suspects would not receive immunity if they called 911 while police were in
the process of entering the building. See 35 P.S. § 780-113.7(d)(1).
Furthermore, even if police were completely unaware of the narcotics
distribution operation, and were summoned to treat an overdose, there
would be no immunity granted for distribution charges, firearms charges, or
any other serious crime not explicitly listed in the Act. See 35 P.S. § 780-
113.7(d)(2). Thus, the Act in no way constitutes an impediment to the
prosecution of organized criminal behavior.
As the learned trial judge noted in announcing his verdict, application
of the Act to this fact pattern is not straightforward. The esteemed trial
judge chose a strict construction in interpreting the statute. In light of our
standard of review, we believe our broader interpretation is in line with the
Legislature’s clear intent in enacting this statute.
As referenced above, the Act repeatedly refers to the presence of a
third party, the reporter, in setting forth the conditions for immunity. For
example, the Act states the reporter must be acting under a reasonable
belief that “another person” is in need of immediate medical assistance. See
35 P.S. § 780-113.7(a)(2)(i). Thus, the Act appears to implicitly condition
the grant of immunity on the presence of two parties: a reporter and a
victim.
-7-
J-A20029-17
However, it is unclear this implicit requirement was intended. The Act
does not explicitly exclude immunity for self-reporters. Furthermore,
excluding self-reporters from the immunity granted by the Act would lead to
absurd results. Using the facts of this case as an example, we could hold
that Lewis was not immune because she self-reported and affirm her
conviction. However, if she had summoned anyone else—a neighbor, or
passerby, for instance—to phone the police for her, it is clear she would
qualify for immunity under the Act.
We do not believe the Legislature intended this absurd dichotomy in
results. “The legislature does not intend a result that is absurd and
unreasonable.” Bankers Trust Co. v. Foust, 621 A.2d 1054, 1058 (Pa.
Super. 1993) (citation omitted). See also Koken v. Reliance Ins. Co., 893
A.2d 70, 81 (Pa. 2006); 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(1). We cannot believe the
Legislature intended to weigh the life of a self-reporter below the life of a
drug overdose victim who has a conscientious associate. Whether a life is
worth saving should not depend on the presence of a third party. We
therefore conclude the immunities granted under the Act are available to
self-reporters, so long as they meet all other requirements.
Which leads to the second basis for the trial court’s refusal to grant
Lewis immunity under the facts of this case. The court found Lewis was not
“in need of immediate medical attention … necessary to prevent death or
-8-
J-A20029-17
serious bodily injury due to a drug overdose event.” Trial Court Opinion, filed
2/28/17, at 4 (emphasis and footnote omitted).
However, this standard is not the standard set forth in the Act. The Act
requires the reporter to have “a reasonable belief that another person was in
need of immediate medical attention and was necessary to prevent death or
serious bodily injury due to a drug overdose[.]” 35 P.S. § 780-113.7(a)(2)(i)
(emphasis supplied). Thus, the subject of the report need not necessarily
require immediate medical attention, or even be suffering from a drug
overdose. What the Act requires is that the reporter have a reasonable belief
emergency medical care is required due to a drug overdose.
Initially, the reasonableness of Lewis’s belief is bolstered by the fact
she called 911 to request aid. There is no evidence Lewis had a motive to
call 911 outside of a desire to seek immediate medical attention.
Furthermore, the only testimony at trial came from the officer who
responded to Lewis’s 911 call. He testified the responding ambulance crew
took Lewis to the hospital, over her protests. See N.T., Bench Trial, 1/27/17,
at 16-17. He agreed this was done “because they wanted to make sure that
whatever she ingested didn’t eventually kill her or harm her[.]” Id., at 17.
Thus, the Commonwealth presented evidence that the responding
ambulance crew believed Lewis was in need of immediate medical care to
prevent death or serious harm. On this record, we cannot conclude Lewis’s
belief was unreasonable.
-9-
J-A20029-17
We therefore reverse the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence reversed. Appellant discharged.
President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins the opinion.
President Judge Gantman concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/2/18
- 10 -