United States v. Burkholder
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4118
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jerry Lee Burkholder admitted giving a Suboxone (buprenorphine) tablet to Kyle Dollar the night Dollar later was found dead; police seized Suboxone at Burkholder’s home.
- Indictment charged Burkholder under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(E)(i) for distributing a Schedule III controlled substance “the use of which resulted in” the victim’s death, invoking a 15‑year statutory maximum.
- Autopsy and government toxicology experts opined Dollar died from a combination of buprenorphine and alcohol; defense experts disputed causation and emphasized low dose and alternative causes.
- At trial the district court refused Burkholder’s requested instruction that the jury must find the death was a reasonably foreseeable (proximate) result of the distribution, instead instructing a but‑for causation standard.
- Jury convicted; on appeal Burkholder argued § 841(b)(1)(E)(i) requires proximate causation/foreseeability, so the district court erred by giving only a but‑for instruction.
- The Tenth Circuit majority affirmed, holding the statute’s “death ... results from” language requires only but‑for causation, not proximate causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(E)(i) requires proximate (legal/foreseeable) causation for the death‑result enhancement | Burkholder: statute requires proximate causation; jury should have been instructed that death must be a reasonably foreseeable result of distribution | Government: statute’s passive phrasing “death ... results from” and context indicate only but‑for (actual) causation is required | Court held the statute requires only but‑for causation; no proximate‑cause/foreseeability element required |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (discusses requirement that facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (held "results from" requires actual/but‑for causation; declined to decide proximate‑cause question)
- United States v. Cardena‑Garcia, 362 F.3d 663 (10th Cir. 2004) (interpreting similar "resulting in death" language in sentencing context as not imposing proximate cause)
- United States v. Woodlee, 136 F.3d 1399 (10th Cir. 1998) (held foreseeability was sufficient for penalty enhancement under a different statute; discussed in dissent)
- United States v. Houston, 406 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluded identical "results from" language does not require foreseeability/proximate causation)
- United States v. McIntosh, 236 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2001) (held "results from" plain meaning requires cause‑in‑fact, not proximate cause)