It will be no easy task for Butler County District Attorney Rich Goldinger to convince a jury that Tonya Kildoo is guilty of reckless endangerment in the July 3 overdose death of her boyfriend, Christopher Otto.

We concede that we don’t yet know all the facts of the case — more details will emerge as the investigation unfolds — so any conclusions drawn now are premature.

But based on the evidence at hand, this case will be difficult to prosecute because it ventures into the realm of Pennsylvania’s Good Samaritan law, which encourages prompt reporting of overdoses by granting immunity to the overdose victim and anyone who summons help. The Kildoo case asks this question: Is someone equally immune from prosecution when she does not seek prompt assistance?

Kildoo, 39, is accused of failing to call 911 or promptly getting her boyfriend emergency medical treatment. According to court documents, Kildoo recounted that after Otto overdosed, she gave him Suboxone, the synthetic opiate prescribed to treat narcotic addiction. It primarily works by preventing withdrawal symptoms.

The presence of Suboxone in their home indicates that Otto was no newcomer to heroin abuse. An alert jury would conclude that suboxone means Otto was aware of his addiction and was getting treatment for it.

Jurors might also conclude Kildoo is less experienced in the nuances of addiction after they learn that she gave Suboxone to an unconscious Otto, confusing it for the overdose antidote Narcan.

Otto’s first known arrest for drug paraphernalia — a syringe in his pocket — was nine years ago, according to police and Butler Eagle records. With that in mind, let’s assume the fatal overdose of July 3 was not his first overdose in at least a decade of abuse.

How was Kildoo supposed to know that this episode would be more severe than previous ones? Maybe she assumed the Suboxone would work just like Narcan — it just needed another minute or two to kick in.

Remember, anyone can legally buy Narcan and administer it.

From a broader philosophical standpoint, how do we as a society hold a loved one responsible for another’s chronic addiction when, under the state’s Good Samaritan law, we perpetuate and abet addictive behavior every day — by reviving overdosed addicts with Narcan, then letting them walk away, no questions asked, sometimes to receive multple Narcan treatments within days, or even hours?

Kildoo might not find a sympathetic jury. She doesn’t need to. She needs only one sympathetic juror. With 52 overdose deaths confirmed so far this year, the odds are pretty good she’ll find at least one.