Prosecuting overdose: An exploratory study of prosecutorial motivations for drug-induced homicide prosecutions in North Carolina.

Background: Prosecutorial use of drug-induced homicide (DIH) laws varies, and their public health impacts are poorly understood. This mixed-methods study explores associations between the number of DIH charges filed in North Carolina's 42 prosecutorial districts and district-level characteristics. Further, it documents the experience and views of North Carolina prosecutors on DIH cases.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive, exploratory analysis of DIH enforcement by prosecutorial district in North Carolina to assess associations between overdose deaths, number of prosecutors employed, and rurality of the district. We also sent a survey to all N.C. prosecutors requesting that they detail their experience with and views on DIH prosecutions.

Results: We found no association between overdose deaths or the number of prosecutors and DIH charges within a district. Survey data suggests that perceived justice for the deceased and perceived imperatives to "do something" about overdose influence prosecutorial use of DIH charges. Prosecutors generally appeared to agree that DIH cases had the potential to reduce substance use and/or drug dealing and/or fentanyl dealing and/or drug overdose in their districts, though how DIH cases would produce those effects was not clarified. Many prosecutors framed people who use drugs as helpless victims and forged categorical distinctions between (1) people who use drugs and sell drugs to support their addiction and (2) people who use drugs and sell drugs and are motivated by profit. Several prosecutors suggested that charging one person with homicide for another person's consensual acts may not appear logical to all jurors.

Conclusions: DIH prosecutions do not appear to be predicted by district characteristics commonly believed to shape prosecutorial action. Many prosecutors endorsed claims about the community-level impacts of DIH prosecutions that are unproven and generally contradict the available evidence. More research on the implementation and community-level outcomes of DIH prosecutions is needed.