Legal Labyrinth: Attorney's Prison Drug Smuggling Conviction Overturned in Landmark Appeal

In a significant legal development that has sent ripples through the Massachusetts legal community, attorney Dana Alan Curhan has successfully had his conviction for attempting to smuggle Suboxone into MCI-Norfolk prison overturned by the state's Appeals Court. The dramatic reversal, handed down on September 18, 2025, centers on a critical flaw in the jury instructions provided during Curhan’s initial trial, shining a spotlight on the intricate definitions of "contraband" within correctional facilities.

Curhan, a seasoned defense lawyer, was originally convicted in 2023 of delivering an article to a prisoner and conspiracy to deliver an article to a prisoner.

Prosecutors alleged he had attempted to bring Suboxone strips, hidden within legal documents, to an inmate at MCI-Norfolk in 2018. The powerful opioid addiction treatment, though a controlled substance, was reportedly prescribed to the inmate in question, a detail that became central to the appeals process.

The Appeals Court’s decision meticulously dissected the trial judge's instructions to the jury, specifically focusing on the statutory definition of "contraband." Under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 268, section 28, the term generally refers to items prohibited in prison.

However, the defense argued that if an item, even a controlled substance, is legitimately prescribed to an inmate and its possession is authorized by prison medical staff, it cannot be classified as "contraband" under the statute for the purpose of a smuggling charge.

The appellate panel concluded that the trial judge's failure to adequately instruct the jury on this nuanced distinction constituted a reversible error.

The court found that the jury should have been clearly informed that if they believed the Suboxone was prescribed to the inmate and therefore authorized, Curhan could not be found guilty of delivering "contraband" as defined by the law. This omission, the court reasoned, could have significantly impacted the jury's verdict.

This ruling is more than just a win for Curhan; it sets an important precedent regarding the interpretation of contraband laws in Massachusetts prisons.

It underscores the necessity for precise and comprehensive jury instructions, particularly when dealing with the complex interplay of criminal statutes, medical prescriptions, and prison regulations. For legal practitioners, it reinforces the importance of challenging every aspect of a charge, especially the definitions of key terms.

While the conviction has been overturned, the story for Dana Alan Curhan is far from over.

The Appeals Court's decision remands the case back to the Superior Court for a potential new trial. Prosecutors now face the challenge of retrying the case with the amended understanding of "contraband" and ensuring that all jury instructions meet the stringent standards outlined by the appellate panel.

The legal community will undoubtedly watch closely to see how this complex case unfolds next, as it continues to shape the boundaries of criminal justice in the Commonwealth.