Lawton v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 155
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Lawton, convicted of second-degree escape and PFO II, challenged on appeal after Court of Appeals affirmed; issue whether second-degree escape instruction and related theories were proper; HIP/home incarceration makes home a detention facility; defendant left home without permission in August 2007 while serving a misdemeanor sentence; trial court denied directed verdict; appellate court affirmed some issues but held second-degree escape instruction palpable error; remand for new trial.
- HIP required ankle monitor; home incarceration confines defendant to home except permitted activities; detainment facility defined to include the home under HIP; evidence shows escape occurred by leaving home without permission.
- Escape law includes two routes: from a detention facility or from custody while charged with or convicted of a felony; home under HIP can be a detention facility; appellant’s escape from home fits second-degree escape theory under KY law.
- Appellant argued for directed verdict on second-degree escape; Commonwealth argued escape from home under HIP; no dispute appellant left home without permission.
- Judgment: directed verdict denial upheld; but second-degree escape jury instruction pal- ble error; third-degree escape instruction not supported; reversal and remand for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a directed verdict error on second-degree escape | Lawton contends the evidence did not establish second-degree escape | Commonwealth argues escape from home incarceration constitutes second-degree escape | No reversible error for directed verdict; reasonable jury could convict |
| Whether the jury instruction properly stated all elements of second-degree escape | Lawton argues instruction omitted elements tying to felony status or detention facility | Commonwealth contends instruction aligned with circumstances | Instruction was palpable error; reversal and remand for new trial |
| Whether third-degree escape instruction was warranted | Lawton sought lesser-included third-degree escape | Not explicitly supported by evidence given | Not entitled to third-degree instruction; no error to deny |
Key Cases Cited
- Stroud v. Commonwealth, 922 S.W.2d 382 (Ky. 1996) (HIP custody constitutes being 'in custody' for second-degree escape)
- Weaver v. Commonwealth, 156 S.W.3d 270 (Ky. 2005) (HIP custody supports second-degree escape when felonies involved)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 615 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. App. 1981) (escape by failing to return to a detention facility from work release)
- Stewart v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.3d 502 (Ky. 2010) (palpable error for missing essential element in instruction)
- Carver v. Commonwealth, 303 S.W.3d 110 (Ky. 2010) (instruction error when elements do not match charged crime)
- Sanders v. Commonwealth, 301 S.W.3d 497 (Ky. 2010) (erroneous PFO instruction deemed palpable error)
- McCombs v. Commonwealth, 304 S.W.3d 676 (Ky. 2009) (limits on error when instruction aligns with but misstates elements)