DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday ruled that jurors can hear evidence about suicidal intent in a fentanyl distribution case out of El Paso County.
The ruling is the first time the Colorado justices have interpreted how a 2022 law regarding harsher penalties for drug distribution resulting in death should be applied in such instances.
In August 2023, Colorado Springs police found the body of a man with evidence of fentanyl in his lap. An autopsy determined the man died of "fentanyl intoxication," and the manner of death was suicide.
Later, investigators learned the man allegedly purchased $90 worth of fentanyl pills from Patrick Beverly on the day of his death. Beverly was charged with a Level 1 drug felony, which, according to the state Supreme Court's ruling, enhances his potential sentence if the allegations are found to be the cause of the man's death.
That's because of a 2022 Colorado law (House Bill 22-1326), which enhanced the penalties for those convicted of fentanyl distribution that results in the death of another person. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, potential sentences are now "four times longer" than the original range for fentanyl distribution offenses.
But what happens when an individual intentionally ingests fentanyl in order to end their life? That's the question the justices considered.
Ultimately, in a 5-2 decision, the court found that evidence of a "drug purchaser's suicidal intent" may be relevant and can be admitted at trial.
Bill Griffin, who represents Beverly in the case, was pleased with the ruling.
"If a person is going to commit suicide with fentanyl, does the person who's distributing the fentanyl — are they responsible for that death?" Griffin asked. "The statute is written in such a way that it says if a person distributes fentanyl to another person, and that fentanyl causes their death, you are responsible for it. And you're looking at eight to 32 years in prison, even if it's a tiny amount of fentanyl."
According to the ruling, prosecutors wanted evidence of suicidal intent excluded from the trial. Griffin said this ruling means the jury will hear that evidence and decide if Beverly is both guilty of the distribution charge and if his actions caused the man's death.
"I was happy that the Supreme Court did what they did," Griffin said. "The fact that they were able to kind of clarify that issue, and that it's not just this black and white, 'You sold fentanyl, this person died, therefore you go to prison for a really long time,' I think that's a good thing."
Still, Griffin understands the need for the Colorado law.
"Don't get me wrong. Nobody should be distributing fentanyl. Period," Griffin said. "The legislature passed this law because people were dying from fentanyl for just a tiny amount that they might have consumed. And the argument being, fentanyl is inherently dangerous and automatically can cause your death. Therefore, if you distribute it to somebody and they die, you should be liable for that. If a person took so much fentanyl that it wasn't foreseeable in any way that anybody would ever take that much fentanyl, and the only reason they might take that much is because they intended to end their life, that's a different situation altogether."
Matt Riviere, who lives in Monument, supported the 2022 legislation. He became active in advocacy work surrounding fentanyl awareness after his sons, 21-year-old Andrew and 19-year-old Stephen, died from fentanyl poisoning on the same night in July 2021.
"If you're going to sell a drug that's going to kill people, then you need to pay the penalty for your actions," Riviere said.
Riviere said his boys did not know they ingested fentanyl, and instead thought they were experimenting with oxycodone.
"That was a terrible day. Worst day of my life," Riviere said. "It's hard to put into words, really, when your whole world gets turned upside down by something you've never expected."
However, Riviere believes the ruling in Beverly's case is more nuanced than the law.
"For me, as I read that opinion, it was hard for me to say that we should hold that dealer accountable for death. Certainly accountable for the actions that they took knowingly dealing fentanyl, and they need to pay that penalty, but for them to have that extended penalty leading to death, I just don't agree with that," Riviere said. "We were thinking about these kids that were being dealt these drugs and losing their lives. It never crossed my mind about this being a mechanism for successful suicide."
The case in question boils down to intent for Riviere, which he said is incredibly different than the intent of his sons on that night in July 2021.
"The intent was on the side of the client, not on the side of the person selling the drug," Riviere said. "My boys intended to have a great time... Their intent was not to die that night, and it was completely accidental... In this case, this person chose to end their life, which is a tragedy in itself."
Two of the justices did not agree with the decision, writing that the man's death was not just foreseeable but "practically expected." The opinion continued to state that if Beverly sold the fentanyl that led to an overdose, then Beverly is "legally responsible" for the death.
According to Griffin, the goal is to have Beverly's trial date set within the next month.
The 4th Judicial District, which is prosecuting Beverly, said there are ethical rules that prevent the office from commenting on the opinion while the case is open.
