By Beth David, Editor
Michelle Carter, the Plainville woman who was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter in the suicide death of Conrad Roy III, is scheduled to have her appeal heard before the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday, 10/4 at 9 a.m.
Attorneys for Ms. Carter contend that Judge Lawrence Moniz erred when he convicted Ms. Carter for several reasons. In court filings, they say he convicted her on “wanton and reckless failure to act,” not based on a “wanton and reckless affirmative act.”
Second, the attorneys argue that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Carter committed Involuntary Manslaughter.
Third, they argue that her conviction violates due process, because it fails to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct and “invites arbitrary enforcement.” The argument here is that there is not a law against assisted suicide in Mass. and therefore, Ms. Carter could not know that what she was doing was illegal, and it was not because there is no law.
Fourth, “interpreting involuntary manslaughter to reach encouraging suicide with words alone infringes on free speech, because it is neither necessary nor narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest in preserving human life.”
Fifth, the defense attorneys argue that Carter was not treated properly under the “Youthful Offender Statute,” in several areas.
Sixth, the judge “erroneously failed to evaluate 17-year-old Carter’s conduct, under the standard of a ‘reasonable juvenile,’” write the attorneys.
And seventh, the judge “erroneously excluded all testimony by a defense expert on adolescent psychology, which would have put Carter’s conduct in proper context.”
In its response, the District Attorney’s Office writes that Ms. Carter was convicted of both theories of involuntary manslaughter (1) and (2) contends that the evidence did indeed support the judge’s conclusions that Ms. Carter committed Involuntary Manslaughter “both by instructing Roy to get back in the truck and by failing to alleviate the danger once she had created it.”
(3) The DA argues that “nothing that happened at Carter’s trial undermined the correctness of this Court’s ruling that she had both objective and subjective notice that her conduct was criminal.”
As to point 4, the DA asserts that “ordering a depressed teenager to resume a suicide attempt is not constitutionally protected speech.”
Carter was properly indicted as a Youthful Offender, and even if a “reasonable juvenile” standard had existed, it would not have made a difference, argues the DA for points five and six.
They also argue that not allowing the psychologist’s testimony did not harm Carter because it was “abstract testimony about the juvenile brain.”
Two amicus briefs have also been filed, both in support of Ms. Carter. One is from the ACLU, mostly arguing that her speech was protected under the First Amendment.
The Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the Mass. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also filed in support of Ms. Carter, contending mostly that her status as a juvenile was not sufficiently taken into account; and that testimony on juvenile brain development should have been allowed.
The arguments will be livestreamed on the Suffolk University Law School website at https://www. suffolk.edu/sjc/
Conrad Roy III died from carbon monoxide poisoning. He was found in the Kmart parking lot in Fairhaven in July, 2014. In 2017, Ms. Carter was found guilty and sentenced to 30 months in the Bristol County House of Correction, with 15 months to be served and 15 months suspended. The judge stayed the sentence until all state appeals are exhausted.•••
•••
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News at: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=Y6V5ARRYH689G
Click here to download the entire 9/27/18 issue: 09-27-18 MillicentOpenHse
