Boston, MA - The Supreme Judicial Court rejected Michelle Carter’s request for an appeal regarding a highly publicized case in which the Massachusetts teen was convicted in relation to the suicide of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III. According to officials, Carter had stated the text messages and statements she’s said in the past about her former deceased boyfriend should be covered by the First Amendment, therefore ruling jail out; that is not what the SJC decided.

Michelle Carter will go to jail for the part she had played in the death of her boyfriend Conrad Roy III a few years back. The SJC used text messages and statements that Carter had said after Roy’s death in court. The following information has been provided by officials that were present in the court case.

-          Michelle Carter had told some of her friends that she had, “heard him die.”

-          Carter had told friends that she believed Roy’s death was her fault.

-          Carter wrote in a text message to one of her friends on September 15, 2014, stating that she told Roy to get back into the car and commit suicide.

With all of this information in hand, the SJC decided to side with Judge Moniz on Carter officially going to jail. According to Judge Moniz, the decision was made using the evidence contained in the text messages. Moniz went on further to state that Carter had encouraged a vulnerable and confused 18-year-old man to commit suicide. Carter had taken Roy in his weakened state and pressured him to do something he was unsure of. Carter did not stop Roy and did not call for help. All of this led Moniz and the SJC to come to the jail time decision.

Carter’s attorneys tried to tell the SJC that this was the first court case with such circumstances to exist. They tried even further to state that this would be the first state in the U.S. to convict someone of manslaughter when the person was not even present.

All the comments were pushed aside, and the SJC ruled their choice.

The real question was whether a person could legally cause the suicide of another, but it was already answered the second the SJF allowed the case to go to trial.

This case is said to potentially change the way the law is applied to speech.