Powell v. Commonwealth
2006 WL 1044167, 189 S.W.3d 535, 2006 Ky. LEXIS 110 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person's direct participation in intravenously injecting a controlled substance into another person, coupled with the knowledge that the recipient has previously suffered a severe adverse reaction to that substance, is sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the person acted recklessly and to sustain a conviction for reckless homicide if the injection causes death.
Facts:
- Franklin Dean Powell, II, and Billie Jolene Bennett were together in Powell's vehicle in the early morning hours of October 30, 1999.
- Bennett prepared a syringe with methamphetamine owned by Powell and attempted to inject herself, but struggled and complained of a burning sensation, indicating a subcutaneous rather than intravenous injection.
- Perceiving her lack of skill, Powell assisted Bennett by guiding the needle into a vein in her arm and pushing the plunger, thereby administering the drug intravenously.
- Powell was aware that Bennett had previously suffered a severe adverse reaction to methamphetamine on at least one prior occasion.
- After the injection, Powell fell asleep.
- When Powell awoke hours later, he found Bennett unresponsive and barely breathing.
- Before medical assistance was fully secured, Powell removed the remaining methamphetamine and syringes from his vehicle and hid them.
- Bennett was pronounced dead at the hospital from methamphetamine intoxication, with a level in her blood described as lethal.
Procedural Posture:
- Franklin Dean Powell, II, was tried before a jury in Daviess Circuit Court, a trial-level court.
- The jury convicted Powell of reckless homicide, trafficking in methamphetamine, and tampering with physical evidence.
- Powell appealed his conviction for reckless homicide to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's act of intravenously injecting a lethal dose of methamphetamine into another person, whom the defendant knows has previously suffered a severe adverse reaction to the drug, constitute a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death sufficient to support a conviction for reckless homicide under Kentucky law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cooper
Yes. A defendant's act of intravenously injecting a lethal dose of methamphetamine into another person, whom the defendant knows has previously suffered a severe adverse reaction to the drug, is sufficient to support a conviction for reckless homicide. The Commonwealth was required to prove that the injection caused the death, there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, and the defendant's failure to perceive that risk was a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person. Here, the jury could reasonably disbelieve the defendant's claim about the small quantity of the drug and conclude that his injection was the cause of death. Crucially, the defendant's knowledge of Bennett's prior severe adverse reaction made the risk of another fatal reaction foreseeable. This direct administration of the drug to a known vulnerable individual distinguishes this case from those where a defendant merely furnishes drugs, and supports the finding that his failure to perceive the risk was a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care.
Dissenting - Justice Johnstone
No. The defendant's actions did not constitute reckless homicide because the Commonwealth failed to prove that the risk of death from a methamphetamine overdose was 'substantial and unjustifiable.' The penal code requires the risk to be substantial. The only evidence on this point was testimony from the deputy coroner that in the thirteen years prior to Bennett's death, there had been only one other death by methamphetamine overdose in the entire county. This indicates the risk is exceedingly rare and marginal, not substantial. It is illogical to charge a person with recklessly failing to perceive a risk that is statistically insignificant.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of reckless homicide in the context of drug-induced deaths, establishing a critical distinction between merely furnishing drugs and directly administering them. It emphasizes that a defendant's specific knowledge of a victim's particular vulnerability (like a prior adverse reaction) is a key factor in determining whether the risk of death was foreseeable and substantial. The ruling lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in similar cases by focusing on the defendant's subjective awareness and direct actions, rather than relying solely on general statistical evidence of a drug's lethality. This precedent makes it significantly easier to secure homicide convictions against individuals who actively participate in the administration of a fatal drug dose.
