Cox v. Commonwealth, 553 S.W.3d 808

Daniel Cox drove his four‑month‑old son Jayceon in a rear car seat; the infant cried and Cox admitted shaking the seat and testified he did not hit the child.
Two eyewitnesses following Cox testified they saw him swing at, strike, and forcefully shake the infant; Jayceon later became limp, was taken to a hospital, and died two days later of severe blunt head trauma.
Cox sent hostile, vitriolic text messages to the child's mother within three days before the incident expressing hatred and wishing the child dead; those messages were admitted at trial.
Medical experts testified Jayceon’s injuries were inflicted blunt‑force trauma inconsistent with a mere fall or ordinary shaking and indicated physical abuse causing death.
A jury convicted Cox of murder and recommended life imprisonment; Cox appealed raising (1) a unanimity challenge to the murder instruction ("hitting, shaking or both") including combined intentional/wanton instruction, and (2) wrongful admission of his text messages under KRE 404(b) and 403.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Cox's Argument	Held
Whether jury instruction requiring unanimity as to the specific physical act ("hitting, shaking or both") violated the unanimous‑verdict requirement	Instruction lawful because causation is the statutory element; jurors need only unanimously find Cox caused the death, not the precise means	Instruction flawed because it did not require unanimous agreement on which specific act caused death	Affirmed: no unanimity error; means are a non‑elemental disagreement and jury unanimously found causation
Whether admission of Cox’s pre‑incident text messages was reversible error under KRE 404(b) and 403	Messages admissible to show motive, intent, and absence of mistake or accident; probative value outweighs prejudice; limiting instruction given	Messages unduly prejudicial and not probative of state of mind regarding the offense	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting messages; probative of intent/motive and not substantially outweighed by prejudice

Wells v. Commonwealth, 561 S.W.2d 85 (Ky. 1978) (Kentucky constitutional rule requiring unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases)
Martin v. Commonwealth, 456 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2015) (discussion of types of unanimous‑verdict errors)
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972) (unanimity and jury‑verdict principles)
Richardson v. U.S., 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (distinguishing elements from means; jury need not agree on means so long as they agree on element)
Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (elements and sentencing distinctions relevant to elemental analysis)
Hudson v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 106 (Ky. 1998) (permitting combined instructions where supported by evidence)
Rucker v. Commonwealth, 521 S.W.3d 562 (Ky. 2017) (contrast on admission of post‑event communications and limits of 404(b) evidence)