Acosta v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 5
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Cecilia Alvarado died at six months old; Acosta (mother) and Rankin (boyfriend) were charged in connection with her death.
- Rankin was convicted of murder and first-degree criminal abuse; Acosta was charged only with first-degree criminal abuse.
- Autopsy revealed Cecilia had a skull fracture, multiple subdural/epidural hematomas, neck bruising, and prior injuries indicating abuse.
- Medical and witness testimony showed Acosta had opportunity and responsibility as caregiver, but direct abuse by Acosta herself was contested.
- The trial court gave two alternative jury instructions: direct abuse by Acosta or Acosta permitting Rankin to abuse Cecilia; jury convicted under the direct-abuse instruction.
- Appellate courts affirmed, but the supreme court reversed, holding the direct-abuse instruction was improper given the evidentiary record, though the alternative theory remained viable for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the direct-abuse theory supported by sufficient evidence? | Acosta relied on opportunity; insufficient for direct abuse. | Evidence could support direct abuse as well as permitting abuse. | Direct-abuse instruction unsupported; reversal warranted for that theory |
| Did the evidence suffice to support the permitting-abuse theory to deny a directed verdict? | Evidence supported permitting Rankin’s abuse by Acosta’s failure to intervene. | Strongest proof implicated Rankin; Acosta’s knowledge could support permitting. | Yes, sufficient to deny directed verdict under permitting-abuse theory |
| Was the instructional error palpable where the direct-abuse instruction was unsupported? | Conviction under direct-abuse instruction violated due process if unwarranted. | Palpable error not preserved; may be reversible only for instructional error. | Palpable error, warranting reversal of conviction on direct-abuse ground |
| Should reversal occur on preserved error for the direct-abuse instruction rather than a simple directed verdict? | Direct-verdict standard dictates acquittal if no theory supported. | Instructional error, not preserved directed-verdict issue; appellate relief appropriate via reversal. | Reversal of conviction; retrial permitted under permitting-abuse theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 528 (Ky. 1978) (directed-verdict standard; insufficiency triggers appropriate objections)
- Mason v. Commonwealth, 331 S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2011) (distinguishes between evidence sufficiency and instructional error)
- Carpenter v. Commonwealth, 771 S.W.2d 822 (Ky. 1989) (evidence beyond mere opportunity can sustain conviction)
- Lawton v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 565 (Ky. 2011) (directed-verdict review against statutory elements; preserve errors)