Laurel Newman
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) recently affirmed Michelle Carter’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter for her role in the suicide of Conrad Roy. The case has been especially newsworthy since before the trial occurred, due to Ms. Carter’s indictment resting solely on spoken and written words that the Commonwealth says coerced the victim to commit suicide. As this author previously wrote, this case is the first where a defendant has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter without doing any physical act.
Ms. Carter was found guilty by a judge after waiving a jury trial, and has now appealed to the SJC, who affirmed the rulings of the lower court. See Commonwealth v. Carter, SJC-12502 (Mass. Feb. 6, 2019). The basis of the appeal was a lack of evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as her claim that the conviction violates her right to free speech under the First Amendment.
Sufficiency of the Evidence Claim
The SJC affirmed the finding of the trial court judge that Ms. Carter could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court considers that Ms. Carter confessed in a text message to a friend, and the confession was corroborated by the death of the victim. Ms. Carter’s coercive texts to the victim were found by the court to be enough to show wanton or reckless conduct, a requirement for the conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Id. at 14, n.8. The Court reasoned her text messages were especially coercive and instructive, and she knew the vulnerability of the victim and the impact her words would have, which ultimately overpowered his free will and caused his death. Id. at 18.
First Amendment Claims
Ms. Carter contends that her conviction based on verbal conduct was a violation of her First Amendment rights. The SJC cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949), holding that “‘speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute’ is not protected by the First Amendment.” Carter, slip op. at 25. The Court goes on to reason that the conviction was not based on words alone, but reckless or wanton words causing death. Id. at 27. The court, while not entertaining Ms. Carter’s argument that this limiting of speech requires a strict scrutiny analysis due to the content-based restriction on speech, holds that even if strict scrutiny were to be applied, “the restriction on speech here has been narrowly circumscribed to serve a compelling purpose.” Id.
Criminal and Societal Precedent and Impact
Perhaps the most impactful part, at least to this author, of the decision was the consistent description of the victim as “vulnerable, confused, mentally ill,” and that the victim being in such a state had a great effect on Ms. Carter’s ability to persuade him to return to the car. Id. at 19. Ignoring the politically incorrect terminology calling the victim “mentally ill,” these descriptive terms used by the court can easily describe every teenager in America. At some point every teenager feels that utter despair of teenage problems, be that parents, love, depression, or another aspect of adolescence. Add in a teaspoon of cyberbullying, and the Court has double-downed on the ability to convict every teenage cyberbully there is.
The court does acknowledge that each case will require an examination of context and content of the speech; however, it is difficult to foresee a cyberbullying case or similar discussions of suicide not being seen as having an effect on a victim along the same lines as Ms. Carter’s. Many teenagers in the digital age, especially with the resurgence of “anonymous” apps where peers can leave messages for each other without their name being attached, have and will likely receive at least one message telling them to kill themselves. A quick scroll through social media will find comments such as these everywhere. The author reiterates the importance of education on the impact of texting and an online presence in the digital age and the severity of online bullying. It is not realistic to think that each instance of a cyberbullying interaction on the internet will be prosecuted, even those that lead to suicide. However, cases such as Michelle Carter’s prove that, now, text messages can lead to a conviction.