The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard the appeal of a lower court judge’s refusal to dismiss Michelle Carter’s manslaughter charges from her boyfriend’s 2014 death.
Carter exchanged several text messages with her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, in the days leading up to his death, which prosecutors believe directly led to his decision to kill himself by carbon monoxide poisoning. Prosecutors say Carter, who was 17 at the time, encouraged Roy to commit suicide by instructing him several times to “just do it”.
While 39 states have laws against encouraging or assisting suicide, Massachusetts is not one of them. Prosecutors ultimately charged Carter with involuntary manslaughter.
Carter’s indictment reads, “Carter assisted Conrad’s suicide by counseling him to overcome his doubts…Her counsel took the form of positive direction, where she told him he was ‘strong’ enough to execute the suicide plan and would be happy once he was dead.” In addition to urging Roy not to delay the act any longer, Carter even provided her boyfriend with alternative methods of producing carbon monoxide when it became clear that his truck’s diesel engine alone would not work in his plan to commit suicide.
Carter’s defense attorney asked the court to dismiss the manslaughter charges on the basis that Carter didn’t commit an actual act and that her text messages were protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The state argued otherwise and the lower court agreed. You can read the State’s response here, which includes several detailed text messages between Carter and Roy that are definitely worth reading if you want to know the details of the case.
What Qualifies As Assisting Suicide?
There isn’t one specific definition, as laws vary from state to state. Generally, assisted suicide is committed with the aide of another person and is normally defined as knowingly or intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means, or both, required to commit suicide. It gets a lot trickier when it comes to defining what constitutes encouragement.
In State of Minnesota v. Melchert-Dinkel, the defendant created a false Internet identity, claiming to be a female nurse who intended to kill herself, and actively encouraged 2 depressed and suicidal people to kill themselves in front of a webcam, presumably so the defendant could watch the deaths. The Minnesota Supreme Court invalidated the State’s law, in part, ruling that “advising” or “encouraging” suicide was protected by the First Amendment freedom of speech.
Encouraging may mean something different than assisting suicide. Take physician-assisted suicide, or death by dignity laws, for example. While a physician may assist an ill patient in committing suicide, that doesn’t necessarily mean they were encouraging the patient to commit suicide.
Where Do You Draw the Line?
Should all speech be protected under the First Amendment? Certainly not. Precedent tells us speech such as obscenity, child pornography, and “fighting words” are not protected speech, but that’s not enough to define a clear-cut answer to the question of whether text messages encouraging suicide are enough for manslaughter.
Prosecutors in Carter’s case reasoned that, “Where a defendant is charged with threatening a victim, she is not charged with ‘merely using offensive speech,’ but for ‘conduct that placed the victim in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious physical harm.” Just as fighting words are not protected when they provoke a violation reaction, Carter’s insistent instruction and encouragement crossed a line.
Further, the State urges Carter engaged in a course of wanton or reckless conduct that caused Roy to commit suicide. After getting scared and hesitant on his decision to commit suicide, Roy got out of the car under the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning, and, according to prosecutors, Carter instructed Roy to “get back in the car.” It was this action the State considers a “verbal act instrumental in the commission of the crime of manslaughter.”
What Steps Should Massachusetts Take Going Forward?
The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments for both sides and has a tough decision, currently under advisement, in front of them. After being asked by Justice Robert J. Cordy where the line was between speech and manslaughter, prosecuting attorney Shoshana Stern cited the phone call where Carter told Roy, who was hesitant and scared, to get back in the truck and finish the job.
While speech should be protected, it shouldn’t necessarily be a hard-lined rule when it comes to the topic of encouraging or assisting suicide. Maybe the answer is to look to the actual words that were spoken on a case-by-case basis. Remember Justice Potter Stewart’s famous line when trying to define pornography? “I know it when I see it…”
Consider someone saying, “I think you should commit suicide” versus someone merely discussing their moral acceptance to someone’s wish to end their life. Carter had1,000 opportunities to talk Roy out of committing suicide or getting him some help; instead, she gave him alternatives and talked him out of his hesitations—she essentially handed him a loaded a gun and all but pulled the trigger.
While some have ruled on this issue and some already have laws on the books, it’s not an area that’s been widely litigated, which means Massachusetts decision could spark others to follow suit.
If you know someone with suicidal thoughts, visit the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline or call 1 (800) 273-8255.
Authored by Ashley Roncevic, LegalMatch Legal Writer and Attorney at Law
Comments