Pubdate: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA) Copyright: 2002 PG Publishing Contact: http://www.post-gazette.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/341 Author: Jim McKinnon MURDER CHARGE REJECTED; DRUG LAW RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL Third-degree murder charges were dismissed yesterday against a Beaver County man who still faces trial on charges that he delivered the drug Ecstasy that led to the death last May of a Sewickley teen. In an opinion issued yesterday, Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning ruled unconstitutional the state law that was used as the basis for filing the charge against the defendant, Gregory D. Ludwig, 20, of Rochester. Ludwig still is charged with possession, possession with intent to deliver and delivery of the drug methylenedioxymethamphetamine. It commonly is known as Ecstasy, a hallucinogen that caused 16-year-old Brandy French to vomit, lapse into a coma and die. Manning's ruling called into question a 1972 statute passed by the Legislature that says that a person who delivers a drug that causes the death of the recipient is guilty of third-degree murder. However, that language does not spell out a key element -- malice, which is required in a third-degree murder case. With regard to Ludwig, Manning ruled that the defendant had no malice and prosecutors made no attempt to prove such a state of mind. Brandy and some friends bought the drug May 19 from Ludwig and they each ingested one of the pills at the X-fest rock concert that night at the Post-Gazette Pavilion in Burgettstown. Brandy became ill and confused and was later taken to a friend's home in Bell Acres, where she continued to vomit and pass in and out of consciousness. The complaint alleges that Ludwig committed murder in the third degree when he delivered, sold and distributed the Ecstasy in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, leading to Brandy's death. At a preliminary hearing in December, Paula Wilson testified that she arranged the sale with Ludwig. Brandy died on May 20 in Allegheny General Hospital. Manning wrote that the 1972 statute is vague in that it does not distinguish between two historically recognized classes of crimes: Those that are wrong in themselves, such as murder, and those considered wrong because society wants their commission proscribed, such as drug trafficking. What the Legislature accomplished was to take the socially wrong crime and declare that it is third-degree murder. The problem is that the act of delivering the drug does not include the element of malice required to be guilty of third-degree murder. Manning ruled that prosecutors presented insufficient evidence, because the case does not address the defendant's state of mind. It did not address the question of whether Ludwig delivered the drug with the knowledge that it would or could kill Brandy. Did Ludwig act with malice? Thomassey argues that he did not. "This kid did not commit murder," Thomassey said outside the courtroom. "You just can't redefine third-degree murder that way. "Unfortunately, these kids want these drugs. And if there's no malice, there's no third-degree murder," Thomassey added. Manning ruled that pretrial arguments presented by Assistant District Attorney Stephie Kapourales showed "there is simply no malice whatsoever" on Ludwig's part. Besides, he added, prosecutors did not present any evidence concerning the dangers of Ecstasy. "If arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them," Manning wrote. Manning said the court still did not condone drug dealing. "It is abhorrent -- abhorrent to the judiciary, to the community and to any and all reasonable citizens of this commonwealth." District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said his office would "thoroughly review the decision" before deciding whether to appeal to a higher court or the state Legislature. "Notwithstanding the well written opinion of the court, I believe that the Legislature intended to make it absolutely clear that if you sell drugs and someone dies as a result, you have committed a murder. There is nothing vague about that intention," Zappala said in a written statement issued after the judge's ruling. "I have a settled and undeterred purpose of stopping these murders," Zappala wrote. That resolve is welcomed by Brandy's family, which has filed a civil suit against those who did not seek timely medical help for her. "We have mixed feelings about the decision. Obviously, we are disappointed that the judge dismissed the criminal charges, but we understand his reasons for so doing. "On the other hand, we are gratified that the judge supported the family's contention that medical help obviously should have been summoned much sooner for Brandy." Attorney John P. Gismondi, who represents Brandy's family, said that the dismissal of the criminal homicide charge has no direct impact on a civil suit filed against Brandy's friends and their parents who failed to seek timely medical attention for her. - --- MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager