Sherman & Plano, TX Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Under Sec. 22.08 of the Penal Code, is it a crime to aid another in suicide. That crime is defined as “(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to promote or assist the commission of suicide by another, he aids or attempts to aid the other to commit or attempt to commit suicide. (b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless the actor’s conduct causes suicide or attempted suicide that results in serious bodily injury, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.” Thus, you could face 180 days to 2 years in jail for aiding in the suicide of another, even if they are unsuccessful but hurt themselves severely. However, the Penal Code does not define “aiding” so a jury would have to use the common meaning of the word.
At common law, aiding and abbetting rendered a person guilty as a principal in the second degree. It consisted in being present at the time and place, and doing some act to render aid to the actual perpetrator of the crime, though without taking a direct share in its commission. Under this definition, Ms. Carter could and would not be guilty of assisting suicide. Under Webster’s dictionary, aiding is defined as 1) transitive verb: to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end aid a cause aid a friend, and 2) intransitive verb: to give assistance research that aided in the discovery a new drug. Here, Ms. Carter only gave mere words of encouragement. She did not provide any pills or poison gas, or help at the scene or give him a gun. It would be a stretch to say here words were useful or necessary in achieving the end.
Her words, as awful as they were, do not likely fit any Texas homicide or suicide statute. She may fit under a harassment or stalking statute, but that is a story for a different day.
This begs the question, how could encouragement alone ever be the but for of another person actually killing himself? A jury would have to find that but for Ms. Carter’s conduct, the deceased would not have killed himself. Then, the state would have to show also that the concurrent cause (method of death, other factors pushing suicide) were not sufficient on their own to cause death. That would be a very large uphill battle for the prosecutor, because a person who kills themselves by definition caused their own death by some act.
Emotions ran high last week as Michelle Carter was sentenced to prison under Massachusetts’ manslaughter law for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself, which he did. Under the apparent facts of the case, she overcame with words her boyfriend’s reluctance to kill himself due to her crazed need for attention. What would happen if something similar happened in Texas?
This section went all the way to the United States Supreme Court in Deal v. United States 113 S.Ct. 1993 (1993), in which Mr. Deal got a bad deal at court of 105 years in prison for possessing a firearm during five bank robberies. The Court explored whether “second or subsequent offense” meant that he would have to be convicted by judgment of the first bank robbery on a date before the second or subsequent convictions. The highest Court found that these offenses could be stacked, even if all convictions happened on one judgment and from one trial. The 105 year sentence was affirmed.
These policies have changed the dynamics of DWI defense in Grayson and Collin County. When I started practicing, around half of DWI trials did not involve a chemical test, but now almost all of them do. Back then we would mainly argue over the performance and validity of the field sobriety testing, which we still do, and the way a person looks on video. But, the addition of chemical test evidence means that you now more than ever need a highly trained DWI lawyer like myself who has been thoroughly trained on all aspects of DWI defense. There are more technical issues in a driving while intoxicated prosecution than most other cases, including most homicides.
While on this point, people often ask whether they should take a chemical test when arrested for driving while intoxicated. Our general response as defense attorneys is NO, because there are a lot of things that can go wrong with chemical testing. Both breath testing and blood testing are inexact sciences, and there are lots of human and mechanical errors that can happen to give you a much different result than your actual blood alcohol content. The test is also completely in the hands of the State, and officers and the laboratory employees can tamper with or mishandle the evidence. Also, if your blood alcohol content is above the legal DWI limit of .08, you are only producing evidence against yourself.
However, this is not the case with a Grayson or Collin County, Texas DWI. Grayson County has a policy of no alternative charges for DWI, and I have never seen themgive a public intoxication or an obstruction of highway/passageway on a local driving while intoxicated charge. Theywould rather let a jury decide your fate than do this, which is why it is very important to hire a real DWI trial lawyer immediately if you have been arrested. The only way your case is going to “go away” without a finding of guilt on a DWI is for it to be dismissed, which is rare and is normally in the circumstances of a bad stop or arrest (brought up by a good suppression motion), or because your chemical blood alcohol test came out very well for you. Or, if you have prior military service and are admitted and complete Veterans court, you can obtain a pretrial diversion. Pretrial diversion is similar to probation but contractual, and only upon completion of the contract terms will your case be dismissed.
I haven’t written a DWI blog in a bit, so I think it is time to do an update. Grayson County, Texas are particularly strict jurisdictions when it comes to driving while intoxicated, but there are still ways to have a better case and a better result in your case. Grayson and Collin County District Attorneys run on a platform of strict DWI enforcement, and the counties are very Republican. So, they pays particular importance to DWI cases. But since I began practicing in 2005, I have seen some small shifts (and improvements) in the ways that driving while intoxicated is enforced in these and neighboring counties.