A Massachusetts jury has convicted an 18-year-old driver of causing the death of another man while trying to send a text while driving. It took the jury just two days to decide the young man’s fate in a case which will likely have repercussions around the country, if not globally.

The teen, Aaron Deveau, of Haverhill, Massachusetts, was just 17 years old when police investigators said his vehicle crossed the center line and collided head-on with a vehicle driven by a 55-year-old man named Donald Bowley Jr. of Danville, New Hampshire. Bowley suffered critical injuries in the crash and died in the hospital a little more than two weeks after the crash.

Although Deveau told police and the jury (testifying on his own behalf) that he was not sending texts at the time of the crash, police investigators disagreed. Prosecutors produced a record of activity on the man’s cell phone which showed he sent a text message just two minutes before the deadly collision. Deveau told the jury he had texted before he left work but didn’t touch his phone again until after the crash.

Deveau now faces charges including motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation and punishment under a new state law which makes it a crime for a driver to text while behind the wheel when a person is injured during a crash. He is right now facing as much as 4.5 years in state prison as a result of his conviction.

Distracted driving has resulted in an increased number of crashes and almost every state now has laws either banning the use of handheld devices while driving or providing severe punishment for those involved in crashes as a result of using a handheld device for talking, texting or even finding directions.

All of this has created an atmosphere of distrust around these ubiquitous devices and heightened awareness for safety proponents who now say all handheld devices should be banned from use by anyone operating a motor vehicle.

Massachusetts Senator Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, introduced legislation this week which closed a loophole in the state’s comprehensive law to provide stiffer penalties for anyone convicted of drunk driving. Known as ‘Melanie’s Law’ the original legislation was intended to provide harsher punishments for those convicted of certain driving infractions including drunk driving.

However, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court found that the law left a loophole open by not specifying whether or not a simple admission of guilt was enough or if a complete court conviction was required. By not making the issue black and white, the court found it needed to err on the side of defendants until such time as the law could (or might) be made more clear.

Under the law, a driver with no previous convictions for drunken driving can receive an 18-month license suspension. The length of suspension increases with the number of convictions on a driver’s record. A driver with three or more previous convictions can receive a lifetime suspension.

Massachusetts lawmakers wasted no time to clarifying the law. The measure introduced by Tarr this week passed on a vote of 37-0. Talk about bi-partisan support!

No one questioned whether or not Massachusetts needed the new law. The measure was intended as a solution to the problem of repeat drunk driving offenders, one of whom struck and killed a little girl named ‘Melanie’ for whom the law was named. What was at issue was exactly whom would be included in the law and who would be left out. The State Supreme Court said it had to use the exact wording of the law for interpretation and therefore found in favor of the defendants, the drunk drivers. But lawmakers made it clear they felt the law was needed to work as intended and so they refined it to meet judicial expectations.

The Massachusetts State Supreme Judiciary this week struck down portions of ‘Melanie’s Law’ which the state senate had intended to increase punishment of those convicted of driving of under the influence of alcohol.

‘Melanie’s Law’ also imposed harsher penalties on this convicted of having drugs in their system, but that portion of the law was left untouched by the state’s highest court.

‘Melanie’s Law’ was first enacted statewide in 2005 and was meant as a deterrent against repeat drunk driver offenders. It imposed harsher penalties on those who were convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, those who refused to submit to sobriety checks and even those who failed a breathalyzer test.

The state supreme court did find a problem with the law, but rather with the language of the law, which they said failed to clearly define what was meant by a “conviction.” In other words, just because someone initially admitted to driving under the influence did not mean they would fall under the penalties intended with ‘Melanie’s Law.’ If that person was later found not guilty of their admitted crime, would they or wouldn’t they, because of the admission of guilt, fall under the purview of ‘Melanie’s Law?’

The state supreme court now says lawmakers will need to go back and re-write the law to clarify exactly who the law is intended for.

Despite this problem with the law, the court allowed the portion which increased penalties for those who fail a breathalyzer test, or increasing the maximum penalty for those fully convicted of drunk drivers.

It is just the grey area in between which the court is asking law makers to better define. And Massachusetts lawmakers have responded swiftly by re-writing the bill which they plan to make first on the agenda at the start of the 2013 session.