People v. Nere

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of drug-induced homicide for delivering heroin to the victim who died. The drug-induced homicide statute requires the State to prove that the victim’s death was “caused by” the ingestion of the controlled substance that the defendant delivered. On appeal, Defendant argued, in part, that the jury received the wrong definition of “caused.” Specifically, she argued that Court should have instructed the jury not that State needed to prove that the heroin “contributed” to causing the death but that the heroin was a “but-for” cause of the death. The victim had several other drugs in her system, and evidence at trial did not establish that the victim’s death was caused only by the heroin. Court should have applied Defendant’s definition, because the use of the term “contributing cause” invited the jury to convict based on a spurious theory of causation that relied on “could have” and “more or less probable” rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the definition was based on Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions. Additionally, it was not clear whether the defect in the instruction actually prejudiced Defendant.