Commonwealth v. Scott
Pennsylvania Superior Court
325 A.3d 844 (2024)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Melissa Wandell and Zach Savage planned for Savage to drive Wandell to Harrisburg to buy heroin from Wandell’s dealer, Ro-Ro. Wandell was to give Savage two of her prescribed medications, and Savage was to pay for the heroin, which Wandell and Savage would share. When Wandell phoned Ro-Ro, Jerrod Scott (defendant) answered and said that he could get heroin if Wandell picked him up. When Savage and Wandell picked up Scott, Scott got in the back seat and gave Savage directions to a convenience store, where he used Savage’s money to acquire fentanyl from an unidentified individual. Scott handed the fentanyl to Wandell. Scott then gave Savage directions to another location, where Scott purchased cocaine at Wandell’s request. Savage drove to two more locations so Scott could fill a prescription and trade the prescribed drugs for heroin. Savage and Wandell used cocaine while waiting for Scott, and Wandell and Scott used cocaine while Savage was driving. The trio went to a park to use the acquired drugs. After Scott and Wandell ingested fentanyl, Scott overdosed, requiring Savage to administer Narcan. As Scott recovered, Savage ingested two bags of fentanyl and passed out. Scott and Wandell got Savage back to the car and propped him up in the back seat. Wandell later drove the trio to her apartment. Scott and Wandell left Savage in the back seat while they went inside to take more drugs. Wandell checked on Savage during the night, and he remained passed out. The next morning, Savage was dead. The cause of death was determined to be mixed substance toxicity. Scott was convicted under Pennsylvania law of drug delivery resulting in death (DDRD) and possession with intent to deliver (PWID). Scott appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction, in part because Scott, Wandell, and Savage were acting pursuant to a mutual plan to acquire drugs and use them together.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beck, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

