Allen v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 85
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Allen appeals a Kenton Circuit Court judgment convicting him of wanton murder for killing his girlfriend's three-month-old son, Robert Ross, Jr., with a 30-year sentence following a jury verdict.
- Autopsy and treating doctors showed severe blunt-force head trauma, multiple fractures, and other injuries.
- Allen told investigators that he shook the child and that he may have dropped him; he admitted consuming alcohol and drugs while with the child.
- Allen testified he did not intend to kill or harm the child; he claimed an accidental drop rather than an intentional act.
- The Commonwealth sought wanton murder instructions and offered lesser offenses; Allen requested first-degree manslaughter, which the trial court denied.
- The court ultimately concluded the evidence did not support a first-degree manslaughter instruction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is first-degree manslaughter a lesser included offense of wanton murder here? | Allen argues it is included. | Commonwealth argues it is not included. | No; not supported by evidence, so instruction not required. |
| Did the evidence permit a reasonable juror to convict of first-degree manslaughter if they doubted murder? | Allen could be found guilty of manslaughter if intent to injure shown. | Evidence shows aggravated wantonness; no lesser offense supported. | Not appropriate; evidence did not permit such a division. |
| Should the court have instructed on first-degree manslaughter to avoid possible double jeopardy implications? | Entitlement should not be denied by pleading strategy. | No need to rewrite the case to obtain an instruction. | Not resolved as a standalone, but not necessary given the evidence. |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion in denying the manslaughter instruction? | A reasonable juror could find mere intent to injure. | Evidence showed aggravated wantonness; no lesser instruction warranted. | No abuse; instruction properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Commonwealth, 202 S.W.3d 17 (Ky.2006) (right to lesser included offenses; standard for instruction)
- Osborne v. Commonwealth, 43 S.W.3d 234 (Ky.2001) (reasonable juror standard for jury instructions)
- Thomas v. Commonwealth, 170 S.W.3d 343 (Ky.2005) (reasonable juror standard applied to lesser included offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Wolford, 4 S.W.3d 534 (Ky.1999) (framework for evaluating lesser included offenses)
- Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 (Ky.2003) (first-degree manslaughter evidentiary sufficiency context)
- Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim.App.1999) (discussion of inclusion within homicide statutes)
- Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky.1991) (review standard for jury instructions)
- Hunt v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky.2009) (treatment of jury instruction decisions)
- Cecil v. Commonwealth, 297 S.W.3d 12 (Ky.2009) (abuse of discretion vs. de novo review in instructions)
- Morrow v. Commonwealth, 286 S.W.3d 206 (Ky.2009) (role of reasonableness in evaluating instructions)