## Facts

- Michelle Carter, prosecuted as a youthful offender, had an ongoing relationship with Conrad Roy III, who had depression and prior suicide attempts.
- In July 2014, Roy died of carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck in Fairhaven, Massachusetts.
- Over time, Carter’s communications shifted from urging Roy to obtain help to repeatedly encouraging him to carry out suicide, including selecting a time and method.
- The evidence included numerous text messages pressing Roy to follow through and discouraging delay.
- On the day of Roy’s death, Carter was in phone contact with him while he was in the truck.
- Carter later stated to a friend that Roy exited the truck as he began to feel the effects, and that she told him to “get back in.”
- Massachusetts had no specific statute criminalizing encouragement of suicide; the prosecution proceeded under common-law involuntary manslaughter.
- After a jury-waived trial in Juvenile Court, Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter; she appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a rational fact-finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter engaged in wanton or reckless conduct that caused Roy’s death.
2. Whether criminal liability for Carter’s texts and phone statements violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether applying common-law involuntary manslaughter to these facts was unconstitutionally vague.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Carter’s involuntary manslaughter conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to find Carter’s conduct wanton or reckless, emphasizing sustained pressure and a directive to return to a life-threatening environment.
- The court held causation was satisfied because the fact-finder could conclude Roy’s fatal actions resulted from Carter’s real-time exhortations and instruction.
- The court rejected the First Amendment claim, concluding the communications were speech integral to criminal conduct rather than protected advocacy.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding Massachusetts involuntary manslaughter law provided adequate notice and standards.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary manslaughter in Massachusetts includes an unintentional killing caused by wanton or reckless conduct creating a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result, assessed objectively in light of what the defendant knew.
- A defendant’s words may constitute wanton or reckless conduct when used to exert coercive pressure on a vulnerable person in a manner that foreseeably creates a high likelihood of serious harm.
- Causation may be established where the defendant’s targeted, real-time encouragement and direction can be found to have produced the victim’s fatal act, including by directing the victim to remain in or return to a lethal setting.
- The First Amendment does not protect speech integral to criminal conduct; directed encouragement and instruction that function as the mechanism of the criminal act may be punished without violating free-speech guarantees.
- Common-law standards are not unconstitutionally vague when they supply settled definitions and workable criteria for determining wanton or reckless conduct and causation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a manslaughter conviction based on coercive, real-time communications that a fact-finder could determine recklessly caused a suicide, and it concluded that punishing such directed encouragement did not violate the First Amendment and was consistent with established common-law manslaughter doctrine.


Commonwealth v. Carter, 481 Mass. 352 (2019)