Com. v. Renninger, W.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 466 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A24024-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : WAYNE DOUGLAS RENNINGER : No. 466 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002854-2023

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: JANUARY 2, 2026

The Commonwealth appeals from the March 11, 2025 order entered in

the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, quashing the criminal information

filed against Appellee, Wayne Douglas Renninger, based upon Appellee’s

invocation of the Drug Overdose Response Immunity Act (“the Immunity

Act”), 35 P.S. § 780-113.7. After careful consideration, we affirm.

The following are the relevant facts and procedural history. On January

15, 2023, Cumru Township police officers responded to Appellee’s call,

reporting that his girlfriend had stabbed him in his abdomen with a syringe at

a Subway restaurant. Trial Ct. Op., 5/7/25, at 3. Appellee claimed that “he

was overdosing” and requested transportation to a hospital. N.T., 2/10/24,

at 13-14. The criminal complaint subsequently filed by responding Police

Officer Elizabeth Goida stated that Appellee reported that “he felt dizzy, had

blurry vision, and had thrown up already.” Criminal Compl., 3/13/23, at 5. J-A24024-25

Officer Goida additionally averred that when she arrived on site, Appellee “was

profusely sweating, slurring his words, and swaying back and forth.” Id.

Prior to being transported to the hospital, Appellee consented to a

search of his backpack, which revealed a bag with a clear crystalline substance

and a yellow tablet; subsequent testing revealed both to contain

methamphetamine. Trial Ct. Op. at 3-4; Criminal Compl. at 5. The record

does not include any records or testimony regarding the hospital’s assessment

of Appellee’s condition.

On March 13, 2023, the Commonwealth charged Appellee with

Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.1

On December 9, 2024, Appellee filed an omnibus pretrial motion seeking to

quash the information and dismiss the charges, claiming that he was immune

under the Immunity Act.2

On February 10, 2025, the court held a hearing on the motion at which

only Officer Justin Good, one of the responding police officers, testified. In

addition to the basic facts set forth above, Officer Good explained that, when

medical personnel evaluated Appellee at the scene, Appellee’s abdomen did

not show any “fresh punctures by a syringe.” N.T. at 14. Officer Good

additionally reported that emergency personnel did not administer overdose

agents, such as Narcan, and that Appellee did not display overdose symptoms. ____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), (32).

2 The delay in the case related to Appellee initially seeking admission to the

Drug Treatment Court.

-2- J-A24024-25

Id. at 10-11. Officer Good testified that he did not remember Appellee “saying

anything about symptoms[.]” Id. at 6.

Nevertheless, Officer Good acknowledged that Appellee called

emergency services claiming that he “was overdosing[.]” Id. at 13.

Additionally, the officer recounted that Appellee was “animated and excited”

and possibly under the influence of a stimulant. Id. at 13-14. Officer Good

testified that he had responded to a call from Appellee on December 26, 2022,

several weeks prior to the January 2023 incident, when Appellee also

appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant but not suffering an

overdose. Id. at 12.

On March 11, 2025, the court granted Appellee’s motion to quash the

information pursuant to the Immunity Act.

On April 2, 2025, the Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal. The

Commonwealth and the court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

The Commonwealth raises the following issue on appeal:

Did the trial court err in granting [Appellee’s] motion for a writ of habeas corpus as to all counts by finding that [Appellee] had met his burden of showing he was entitled to drug overdose immunity where the evidence presented did not show that [Appellee] was experiencing an actual overdose or that he contacted emergency services in good faith believing that an overdose was occurring, but instead was contacting law enforcement to report an alleged assault conducted against him by his paramour?

Commonwealth’s Br. at 5 (some formatting altered).

“[T]he decision to grant, or deny, a motion to quash a criminal

information or indictment is within the sound discretion of the trial court[,]”

-3- J-A24024-25

and an appellate court will reverse the decision “only where there has been a

clear abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Kiessling, 343 A.3d 1234,

1243 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citation omitted). “[A] court abuses its discretion if,

in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or rules in a manner

lacking reason.” Commonwealth v. Aguilar, 340 A.3d 311, 319 (Pa. Super.

2025) (citation omitted). “When reviewing an order granting a motion to

dismiss a criminal information, the appellate court accepts the

Commonwealth’s averments as true, examining the evidence and reasonable

inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth.” Kiessling, 343 A.3d at 1243.

As set forth above, this case involves application of the Drug Overdose

Response Immunity Act. “A trial court’s application of a statute is a question

of law, and our standard of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Lewis,

180 A.3d 786, 788 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

The General Assembly enacted the Immunity Act to address the public

health crisis of drug overdose deaths by “sacrific[ing] the prosecution of minor

narcotics offenses in order to save lives.” Commonwealth v. Markun, 185

A.3d 1026, 1037 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc). It provides immunity from

minor drug offenses, including possession of a controlled substance and

possession of drug paraphernalia, “when a person has a reasonable belief

someone is suffering from an overdose and contacts local authorities.” Lewis,

180 A.3d at 787-88. “The Act provides this immunity to both the reporter and

the victim[.]” Markun, 185 A.3d at 1034 (citation omitted).

-4- J-A24024-25

Specifically, the Act provides immunity for a person who can establish

all of the following:

(i) the person reported, in good faith, a drug overdose event to a law enforcement officer . . . and the report was made on the reasonable belief that another person was in need of immediate medical attention and was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury due to a drug overdose;

(ii) the person provided his own name and location and cooperated with the law enforcement officer . . . ; and

(iii) the person remained with the person needing immediate medical attention until a law enforcement officer . . . arrived.

35 P.S. § 780-113.7(a)(2). The statute defines a “drug overdose event” as

follows:

An acute medical condition, including, but not limited to, severe physical illness, coma, mania, hysteria or death, which is the result of consumption or use of one or more controlled substances causing an adverse reaction. A patient’s condition shall be deemed to be a drug overdose if a prudent layperson, possessing an average knowledge of medicine and health, would reasonably believe that the condition is in fact a drug overdose and requires immediate medical attention.

Id. at § 780-113.7(f).

This Court has interpreted the Act to provide immunity if the reporter

has “a reasonable belief [that] emergency medical care is required due to a

drug overdose[,]” even if the person is not in fact “suffering from a drug

overdose” or in need of “immediate medical attention[.]” Lewis, 180 A.3d at

791. The defendant has the burden to “establish the Act’s applicability.”

Markun, 185 A.3d at 1033. Finally, in Lewis, this Court interpreted the

statute to apply to an individual self-reporting their own potential overdose,

-5- J-A24024-25

even though the statutory language does not expressly address self-reported

potential overdoses. Lewis, 180 A.3d at 791.

In the instant case, the Commonwealth argues that Appellee failed to

satisfy his burden of proof. Commonwealth’s Br. at 10-17. The

Commonwealth maintains that “[t]he testimony presented during the pretrial

hearing did not prove that he called law enforcement or authorities for a good

faith belief that he was suffering a drug overdose;” instead, it claims that he

called to report that his girlfriend assaulted him with a syringe. Id. at 13.3

Additionally, the Commonwealth contends that Appellee did not have

the necessary “reasonable belief [that] emergency medical care [was]

required due to a drug overdose.” Id. at 13 (citing 35 P.S. § 780-

113.7(a)(2)(i)). The Commonwealth highlights that Appellee “was coherent

and able to speak with law enforcement” at the scene and that the emergency

personnel did not treat Appellee as if he was experiencing an overdose. Id.

at 15. The Commonwealth notes that Appellee failed to present any evidence

showing that he experienced an overdose. Id. at 10. The Commonwealth

contrasts the instant facts with those of Lewis in which medical personnel

explained that they took Lewis to the hospital “over her protests” because

they “wanted to make sure that whatever she ingested didn’t eventually kill ____________________________________________

3 The Commonwealth asserts that Officer Good testified that Appellee did not

claim to be suffering from an overdose. Id. at 13-14 (citing N.T. at 6). As stated, the record does not support the Commonwealth’s assertion. Rather, Officer Good admitted that “the reason for his call” was that he was overdosing after being struck by a needle. N.T. at 13. Accordingly, even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we reject this claim.

-6- J-A24024-25

her or harm her[.]” Id. at 15-16 (quoting Lewis, 180 A.3d at 791). The

Commonwealth contends that the evidence in the instant case showed only

that Appellee was “[u]nder the influence of a substance” which “does not make

a reasonable belief of an overdose[.]” Id. at 14.

We disagree. Even when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable

to the Commonwealth, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion

in applying the Immunity Act to Appellee. As the court noted, the drug

possession charges at issue are “the type of minor drug infraction that was

contemplated by the [Immunity Act.]” Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6. Moreover, despite

the Commonwealth’s argument to the contrary, the record establishes that

Appellee called emergency services claiming that he was overdosing. It is

irrelevant that Appellee concurrently reported an assault by his girlfriend when

he reported his potential overdose, which he presumably viewed as related to

the alleged syringe assault.

The remaining question is whether Appellee demonstrated that he acted

with a good faith belief that he was experiencing an overdose, which requires

proof that a “prudent layperson, possessing an average knowledge of

medicine and health, would reasonably believe that the condition is in fact a

drug overdose and requires immediate medical attention.” 35 P.S. § 780-

113.7(f). We agree with the trial court that public policy “favor[s] erring on

the side of immunity” to encourage the reporting of potential drug overdoses.

Trial Ct. Op. at 6. The trial court opined that the fact that Appellee “contacted

law enforcement and asked to be taken to the hospital” supported a

-7- J-A24024-25

determination that Appellee acted in good faith, especially where his transport

to the hospital required his consent “to the search of his bag, which he knew

or should have known contained two methamphetamine pills.” Id. at 5. We

additionally note that emergency personnel consented to his request to be

transported to the hospital. Id. at 3. We conclude that the court did not

abuse its discretion in finding that Appellee acted in good faith in reporting his

potential overdose. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s application of the Drug

Overdose Response Immunity Act and its resulting order quashing the criminal

information filed against Appellee.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/2/2026

-8-