United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: KP student charged with manslaughter in Fairhaven friend’s death; authorities say she encouraged him to commit suicide
Source:
Sun Chronicle
URL Source: http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news ... 30-11e4-ada1-7b43f5417c27.html
Published: Feb 27, 2015
Author: Jim Hand
Post Date: 2015-02-27 18:19:00 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 8994
Comments: 44
Michelle Carter and Conrad Roy III A King Philip Regional High School senior has been indicted for involuntary manslaughter, allegedly for urging a friend to commit suicide. She then raised money for mental illness in the name of her friend. Michelle Carter, 18, of Plainville was indicted as a “youthful offender” by a Bristol County grand jury, and was arraigned in New Bedford Juvenile Court. She is accused of urging Conrad Roy III, 18, of Fairhaven and Mattapoisett to kill himself, which he did while idling a truck last July in the parking lot of a Fairhaven Kmart. Authorities said he died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Police found Roy after his family reported him missing. Police went through Roy’s cellphone and allegedly found a number of text messages from Carter, right up until the time he died, when she allegedly urged Roy to go through with the suicide, according to court documents. Fairhaven police Detective Scott Gordon said in a police report: “Not only did Conrad tell Carter in several of his texts prior to his death that he was scared and didn’t want to leave his family, she continued to encourage him to take his own life, and when he actually started to carry out the act, he got scared again and exited his truck, but instead of telling him to stay out of the truck ... Carter told him to ‘get back in.’” The apparent suicide happened last July, but Carter was just indicted Feb. 5 and arraigned the following day. The case had not been previously publicized, and most news organizations don’t regularly cover juvenile court. Gregg Miliote, a spokesman for Bristol County District Attorney Quinn, issued a written statement Thursday outlining the basics of the case. “Based on the totality of the investigation, it is alleged that Ms. Carter had first-hand knowledge of Roy’s suicidal thoughts,” he said. “Instead of attempting to assist him or notify his family or school officials, Ms. Carter is alleged to have strongly influenced his decision to take his own life, encouraged him to commit suicide and guided him in his engagement of activities which led to his death.” He confirmed that Carter called and sent text messages to the victim encouraging him to go through with the suicide. Miliote also said Quinn, the district attorney, has recused himself from involvement in the case because he has a “familial relationship” to the victim. Calls and emails to the Carter family went unanswered Thursday night and no one answered the door at their Plainville home. Carter’s attorney, Joseph P. Cataldo of Franklin, told The Standard-Times of New Bedford Thursday night that she did not commit a crime and that the manslaughter charge probably will be dismissed. “This is terrible tragedy — a young man taking his own life,” he told the Standard-Times. He accused the district attorney’s office of “trying to pin the blame on someone.” “I can’t understand why they brought the charge,” Cataldo said. “They’re trying to claim there is manslaughter, when they freely admit the boy took his own life. You can’t have it both ways.” On Carter’s Facebook page and on the Plainville Athletic League website, postings say she organized a softball tournament last September to raise money for mental health awareness in honor of her friend, Roy. A press release advertising the fundraiser appeared in The Sun Chronicle. The event was called “Homers for Conrad,” and Carter wrote: “life can be tough, but helping others makes it easier.” She also posted several messages on Facebook saying how much she loved her friend and missed him. The Facebook page that was set up for the fundraising event has been taken down and is no longer an active page. However, Carter posted on her Twitter page about the outcome of the fundraiser. “Thank you so much to everyone who came out to support Homers for Conrad! I’m so happy to say that with your help, we raised over $2,300!” Carter posted the message on her Twitter page Sept. 13 under the account @michyc47. She wrote about suicide prevention often on her social media accounts. On Sept. 10, 2014, she posted on her Twitter page: “National Suicide Awareness day, I wish more people understood. I love you and miss you everyday Conrad. Help others #WeCanEndSuicide.” She retweeted the link to a suicide prevention hotline on Sept. 21, 2014. Carter was also a founding member of an organization called Connect-To-Cure, a fundraiser that sells $10 bracelets to raise money for cancer patients at Boston Children’s Hospital. She stopped by the hospital to participate in a charity event, according to an article published in The Plainville Times — three weeks after she was arraigned on the manslaughter charge. Carter was an honor roll student at King Philip Regional High School. The court set bail for Carter at $2,500 and ordered she have no access to the Internet, other than for school work. She must stay off social media and is not allowed to send text messages, other than to her parents. The youthful offender designation she was indicted under means she will be tried in juvenile court, but her trial will be open to the public, unlike typical juvenile cases. Carter was 17 at the time of her friend’s death. Meanwhile, the grandmother of the victim, Janice Roy, said Thursday night she did not want to say too much about the case because it is making the family relive the heartache of Conrad’s death. She did say Conrad was a good kid who had earned his boat captain’s license in only three weeks as he went to work for the family’s marine salvage business. King Philip High School officials today declined to comment on Carter and her indictment for involuntary manslaughter. “The circumstances surrounding this tragic loss are under investigation. Our deepest sympathy is extended to the family and school community of Conrad Roy,” Superintendent Elizabeth Zielinski said. “As an educational institution we are bound by regulations related to the privacy of student records. As such I will not comment on the situation, or discuss anything that is related to any student’s record.” The victim had graduated from Old Rochester Regional High School and was planning to attend Fitchburg State University. His father and paternal grandfather share his name and his love of the ocean. Conrad Roy Jr., the father, was working a tug boat Feb. 19, 2009, when US Airways Flight 1549 went down in the Hudson River. Roy Jr.’s tug was among the first to come to the rescue.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#1. To: cranky, nolu chan (#0)
(Edited)
This sounds like a variety of Munchausen by proxy. She collects sympathy and admiration for memorializing her "friend" and does fundraising after she explicitly encouraged him repeatedly to off himself, right up to his death. I'm not sure how you criminalize this as a matter of law in a way that isn't counterproductive. But I understand how outraged people are that a vulnerable young man was virtually driven to complete his suicide by this girl for no good reason. It might be best to prosecute her under assisted suicide laws and throw the book at her. It sounds like the local authorities are gutless and have referred this to juvenile court, not a good sign. She should face more serious consequences for her actions.
Perhaps a possible defense is a claim that she thought he was just bullshitting her to get attention and she did not believe his texts until after the fact when she found out he was dead.
I might give it a shot. But would that pass the 'reasonable man' standard? I guess it depends on the judge and jury.
Maybe, maybe not. The question is whether it could sustain reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. Without having seen the texts which may be mostly on a single day, or show a sustained effort, or explain motive, it's difficult to know the strength of the case. They took about 8 months to bring the case and presumably had the texts for about the whole time. The delay indicates it was not a slam dunk and I just threw something out there that could be a potential weakness in the case. I have looked a bit at Connecticut law. It would appear to be the actual charge would be Manslaughter in the Second Degree according to the Connecticut penal code. http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-56 (a) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when: (1) He recklessly causes the death of another person; or (2) he intentionally causes or aids another person, other than by force, duress or deception, to commit suicide. (b) Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony. The Connecticut penal code definition of Man2 appears to be what is commonly called involuntary manslaughter. Sec. 53a-56(a)(1) requires that the actions of the accused were the proximate cause of death. It must be "proved beyond a reasonable doubt that died as a result of the actions of the defendant." A difficulty for this charge would be to prove the suicide was as a direct result of the actions of the defendant. Did the accused contribute to the commission of suicide or did she cause the suicide? Is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Sec. 53a-56(a)(2) requires the accused intentionally cause or aid another to commit suicide. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, "that the defendant intentionally caused or aided to commit suicide. A person acts 'intentionally' with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result." A difficulty for this charge would be to prove requisite intent to cause the result. There may well be a plea agreement down to Reckless Endangerment. They may have deliberately overcharged to encourage a plea agreement. Man 2 appears fraught with difficulty. Reckless Endangerment appears much easier to make. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0134.htm A Connecticut Class C felony carries 1 to 10 years. Man 2 carries no mandatory minimum. Reckless Endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor and carries up to 1 year. Reckless Endangerment 2 is a Class B misdemeanor which carries up to 6 months. Connecticut law definitions of Reckless Endangerment 1 & 2 http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-63 (a) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, with extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury to another person. (b) Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 64.) http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-64 (a) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person. (b) Reckless endangerment in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 65.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment Wikipedia discusses the crime of Reckless Endangerment in general terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter Wikipedia discusses Manslaughter in general terms. Attempted Involuntary Manslaughter was a charge resulting in a Connecticut conviction as a lesser included offense, only to be thrown out by the CT Supreme Court as being nonexistent and logically impossible. State v. Almeda, 189 Conn. 303, 309 (1983). State of Connecticut Jury Instructions re 1st and 2nd degree Reckless Endangerment http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part6/6.3-1.htm Revised to December 1, 2007 The defendant is charged [in count __] with reckless endangerment in the first degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows: For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element 1 - With extreme indifference to human life The first element is that the defendant acted with extreme indifference to human life. "Indifference" means simply not caring. It means lacking any interest in a matter one way or the other. Extreme means existing in the highest or greatest possible degree. Extreme indifference is more than ordinary indifference. It is synonymous with excessive and is the greatest departure from the ordinary. What evinces an extreme indifference to human life is a question of fact. Element 2 - Acted recklessly The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. A person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstances exist. Element 3 - Created risk of serious physical injury The third element is that the defendant's recklessness created a risk of causing serious physical injury to another person. "Serious physical injury" is something more serious than mere physical injury, which is defined as "impairment of physical condition or pain." It is more than a minor or superficial injury. It is defined by statute as "physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ." It is unnecessary for any person to have been injured by the defendant's conduct or for the defendant to have intended to injure or endanger any person. Conclusion In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant acted with extreme indifference to human life, 2) the defendant's conduct was reckless, and 3) the defendant posed a risk of causing serious physical injury to another person. If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of reckless endangerment in the first degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty. http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part6/6.3-2.htm Revised to December 1, 2007 The defendant is charged [in count __] with reckless endangerment in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows: For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element 1 - Acted recklessly The first element is that the defendant acted recklessly. A person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstances exist. Element 2 - Created risk of physical injury The second element is that the defendant's recklessness created a risk of causing physical injury to another person.1 "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or pain. Conclusion In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant acted recklessly, and 2) created a risk of causing physical injury to another person. If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of reckless endangerment in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty. _______________________________________________________ 1 There has to be proof that another person was actually put at risk of physical injury. State v. Thomas, 56 Conn. App. 573, 578, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 953 (2000) (defendant shot a pistol into the ground, but there was no evidence of the presence of other people in the vicinity). Commentary Reckless endangerment in the second degree is not a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree. State v. Fuller, 56 Conn. App. 592, 603-604, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 949, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 911, 121 S. Ct. 262, 148 L. Ed. 2d 190 (2000). Reckless endangerment in the second degree, General Statutes § 53a-64, and reckless driving, General Statutes § 14-222 (a), are separate offenses. "Reckless endangerment involves a risk of physical injury, and reckless driving involves endangering the life of another person. Reckless driving is limited to conduct solely involving the use of a motor vehicle. Reckless endangerment is not so limited." State v. Rudd, 62 Conn. App. 702, 710 (2001). State of Connecticut Jury Instructions re Man 2 http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part5/5.1-4.htm Revised to December 1, 2007 The defendant is charged [in count ___] with manslaughter in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows: For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element 1 - Caused death The first element is that the defendant caused the death of . This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the decedent's death. You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that died as a result of the actions of the defendant. Element 2 - Recklessness The second element is that the defendant's actions that resulted in the death of were reckless. A person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstances exist. Conclusion In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant caused the death of , and 2) the defendant's actions that resulted in the death were reckless. If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of manslaughter in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty. http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part5/5.1-7.htm Revised to December 1, 2007 The defendant is charged [in count ___] with manslaughter in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads as follows: a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when (he/she) intentionally causes or aids another person, other than by force, duress or deception, to commit suicide. For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element 1 - Suicide The first element is that committed suicide. Element 2 - Intent The second element is that the defendant intentionally caused or aided to commit suicide. A person acts "intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. Conclusion In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) committed suicide, and 2) that the defendant intentionally caused or aided to commit suicide. If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of manslaughter in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.
The jury instruction makes this hard to get past in this case. Even so, the fact that he exited the pickup until she drove him back into it with further texts seems to demonstrate the reckless indifference. I think I'd flip the coin and put it to a jury. If it doesn't pass muster, so be it. The charges and her role in this matter would not be a secret she could run away from. It would always follow her.
There may be a 1st Amendment defense here, as her only action involved expressing herself.
Though I agree, i'll suggest that a judge or jury will look at this like screaming "fire" in a theater. Speech that can physically hurt someone is not apt to be protected. I look at it this way. The best safety on a firearm is the brain of the weapon holder. All the culpability should rest on the person pulling the trigger. After all, he was the last firearm safety. Whether he shoots himself or another. If he shoots another, charge him criminally. If he shoots himself... sentence served. If he was a child or mentally handicapped (and I mean really mentally handicapped, like drooling on himself retarded) then I'd feel different. This is a slippery slope ideal. If this is widely accepted, then when some nut shoots up a government building because he was told on LF that he should water the tree of liberty with RINO blood, Stone might be getting subpoenaed for IP information on certain posters. Making her culpable at any degree, with just verbal contact, is another venue to remove more freedoms
Let's examine it from another angle. They can always say "I didn't think they'd really kill themselves". Let's say you have someone who is suicidal and balanced on a ledge where they can't easily be grabbed or any nets/balloons positioned to catch them if they jump. It's a big skyscraper in NYC. Then, after hours of standoff with the cops trying to talk him down, it hits Twitter and Facebook and a mob of 500 ghouls shows up below him in the street but behind the police lines. They start chanting "Jump! Jump! Jump!...". And he does. Was that an exercise of free speech by a flash mob? You really want to let them get away with it and walk away laughing? You want to let them give an excuse like "I didn't know he was going to jump", "I thought it was a prank", etc.? I'm generally a free speech radical but I don't want to let the flash mob walk away from doing something like that. Free speech is always a slippery slope, as you mention.
With all seriousness, I find it harder to prove any kind of culpability with a large "flash mob" type of group. If someone is ignorant enough to be talked into jumping from a skyscraper... I'm gonna fault just them.
If someone is ignorant enough to be talked into jumping from a skyscraper... I'm gonna fault just them. When are you NYC-dwelling Rolling-Stone-reading dirty hippie scofflaws finally going to recognize the public need for proper law enforcement?!?!?! You probably haven't been accused of that too often. Shoe on the other foot, eh? : ) Yeah, there is a slippery slope on free speech.
#27. To: TooConservative (#25)
Actually, I was one of those officers that never liked stretching a charge or piling on unneeded charges. More often than not, if bust the balls of one of my subordinates for being a prick.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: TooConservative, cranky (#1)
I'm not sure how you criminalize this as a matter of law in a way that isn't counterproductive. But I understand how outraged people are that a vulnerable young man was virtually driven to complete his suicide by this girl for no good reason.
#11. To: nolu chan (#7)
Perhaps a possible defense is a claim that she thought he was just bullshitting her to get attention and she did not believe his texts until after the fact when she found out he was dead.
#13. To: cranky, TooConservative, GrandIsland (#11)
But would that pass the 'reasonable man' standard?
Sec. 53a-56. Manslaughter in the second degree: Class C felony.
Sec. 53a-63. Reckless endangerment in the first degree: Class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 53a-64. Reckless endangerment in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor.
The illogic of attempted involuntary manslaughter is easily demonstrated. Manslaughter, as herein involved, requires that an individual having the intent to cause serious physical injury to another person causes the death of such person. Involuntary manslaughter is a homicide unintentionally caused. Commonwealth v. Hebert, 373 Mass. 535, 537, 368 N.E.2d 1204 (1977). Attempt liability requires that the defendant entertain the intent required for the substantive crime. General Statutes § 53a-49 (a). Unless death results there can be no crime of involuntary manslaughter. Thus, the crime of attempted involuntary manslaughter requires a logical impossibility, namely, that the actor in his attempt intend that an unintended death result. Such an anomaly the legislature could scarcely have intended. Accordingly, we hold that attempted manslaughter in violation of § 53a-55 (a) (1) is not a crime cognizable under our law.
6.3-1 Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree -- § 53a-63
a person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, with extreme indifference to human life, (he/she) recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury to another person.
6.3-2 Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree -- § 53a-64
a person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when (he/she) recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person.
5.1-4 Manslaughter in the Second Degree -- § 53a-56 (a) (1)
a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when (he/she) recklessly causes the death of another person.
5.1-7 Manslaughter in the Second Degree (Aiding Suicide) -- § 53a-56 (a) (2)
a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when (he/she) intentionally causes or aids another person, other than by force, duress or deception, to commit suicide.
#14. To: nolu chan (#13)
The first element is that the defendant caused the death of . This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the decedent's death. You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that died as a result of the actions of the defendant.
#15. To: TooConservative (#14)
The jury instruction makes this hard to get past in this case.
#16. To: Pinguinite (#15)
(Edited)
There may be a 1st Amendment defense here, as her only action involved expressing herself.
#17. To: GrandIsland, Pinguinite (#16)
If he was a child or mentally handicapped (and I mean really mentally handicapped, like drooling on himself retarded) then I'd feel different.
#22. To: TooConservative (#17)
I'm generally a free speech radical but I don't want to let the flash mob walk away from doing something like that.
#25. To: GrandIsland (#22)
With all seriousness, I find it harder to prove any kind of culpability with a large "flash mob" type of group.
Replies to Comment # 25. You probably haven't been accused of that too often. Shoe on the other foot, eh? : )
End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]