Shirah v. State
1989 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2327, 555 So. 2d 807 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who provides a dangerous controlled substance to another individual can be convicted of criminally negligent homicide if that individual dies from consuming it. The victim's voluntary consumption is a concurrent cause of death, not a superseding, intervening cause that breaks the chain of legal causation.
Facts:
- On the night of April 13, 1987, Barry Shirah was with Michael Shane Nelson and others at a gathering where they drank alcohol and smoked marijuana.
- After the group ran out of liquor, Shirah stated he could get morphine and subsequently left with Nelson.
- Shirah and Nelson returned with liquid morphine that had been prescribed for Shirah's father, who had cancer.
- Shirah mixed the morphine with Sprite in a glass and brought it into the living room.
- Nelson drank approximately half of the morphine mixture from the glass that Shirah provided.
- The following morning, Nelson was found unresponsive and was later pronounced dead.
- An autopsy concluded that Nelson's cause of death was an overdose of morphine and Secobarbitol, with experts testifying that the morphine level alone could have been sufficient to cause death.
Procedural Posture:
- Barry Shirah was indicted for manslaughter by the State of Alabama.
- A jury in the trial court found Shirah guilty of the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide.
- The trial court sentenced Shirah to one year in the county jail.
- Shirah appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
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 victim's voluntary consumption of a dangerous drug provided by the defendant constitute a superseding, intervening cause that absolves the defendant of criminal liability for criminally negligent homicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Tyson, Judge
No. A victim's voluntary consumption of a dangerous drug supplied by a defendant is a concurrent cause of death, not a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation for criminally negligent homicide. The court determined that Shirah's act of providing morphine—a substance described as a "deadly poison"—created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. His failure to perceive this risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. The court distinguished this case from others involving a superseding cause, such as in Lewis v. State, because Shirah was present and actively participated in making the drug available immediately before the victim consumed it. Therefore, the victim's act did not break the causal chain; rather, it operated concurrently with Shirah's criminally negligent conduct to cause the death.
Analysis:
This decision is significant in drug-delivery homicide jurisprudence by clarifying the limits of the intervening cause defense. The court's holding establishes that a victim's voluntary ingestion of drugs does not, by itself, absolve the provider of criminal liability. By classifying the victim's act as a concurrent cause, the ruling strengthens the legal basis for holding drug suppliers accountable for overdose deaths. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to secure homicide convictions in such cases, shifting focus from the victim's choice to the defendant's initial, risk-creating conduct.
