## Facts

- Mitchell Gregory Peck, Jr. sold heroin to Kevin Hunt at a convenience store in Maryland, about ten miles from the Pennsylvania border.
- Hunt returned to Pennsylvania, ingested the heroin, and was later found dead in his bedroom in Pennsylvania; heroin and his cell phone were nearby.
- Text messages showed Hunt arranged to meet Peck at the Maryland store, purchased heroin, ingested it later that night, and sent a message thanking Peck.
- Pennsylvania charged Peck with (1) delivery of a controlled substance under 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (2) drug delivery resulting in death (DDRD) under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506.
- The trial court dismissed the Drug Act delivery count on territorial grounds (delivery occurred in Maryland) but permitted the DDRD charge to proceed.
- A jury convicted Peck of DDRD, and the court imposed a 20–40 year sentence.
- The Superior Court affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a violation of Pennsylvania’s Drug Act (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(14) or (30)) is an element of DDRD under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506.
2. Whether Pennsylvania’s territorial-applicability statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 102, allows a DDRD conviction when the drug delivery occurred wholly outside Pennsylvania but the death occurred in Pennsylvania.

## Decision

- The court held that DDRD expressly incorporates, as an element, a violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(14) or (30).
- The court held that Pennsylvania had jurisdiction to prosecute because the death (a result element) occurred in Pennsylvania under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102.
- The court held that jurisdiction under § 102 does not expand the geographic reach of the Drug Act element incorporated into DDRD.
- Because the delivery occurred entirely in Maryland and the Drug Act applies only to deliveries within Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth failed to prove the predicate Drug Act violation.
- The court reversed the Superior Court and vacated the judgment of sentence due to legally insufficient evidence.

## Legal Principles

- DDRD under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2506 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant delivered a controlled substance “in violation of” 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(14) or (30).
- Territorial applicability under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102 concerns Pennsylvania’s authority to prosecute; it does not modify the substantive elements or territorial limits of an incorporated predicate offense.
- When the predicate Drug Act provision is limited to in-state deliveries, an out-of-state delivery cannot satisfy the Drug Act element of DDRD, even if the resulting death occurs in Pennsylvania.
- Where the Commonwealth fails to prove an essential statutory element, the evidence is insufficient and the conviction cannot stand.

## Conclusion

Pennsylvania could prosecute because the death occurred within the Commonwealth, but DDRD still required proof of an actual Pennsylvania Drug Act violation; since the drug delivery occurred entirely in Maryland and the Drug Act did not reach that conduct, the evidence was insufficient and the DDRD conviction was vacated.


Commonwealth v. Peck, 242 A.3d 1274 (Pa. 2020)