Mason v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 3
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Mason was indicted for first-degree criminal abuse of a child under 3 and later charged as a PFO 2.
- The Commonwealth amended the abuse indictment at trial to include three statutory methods under KRS 508.100 and to reflect the victim's age.
- Evidence showed M.M. suffered a serious leg fracture and bruising; doctors questioned causation but noted injuries consistent with abuse.
- Mason, who is visually impaired, testified he fell onto M.M. while responding to a noise; other witnesses described Mason as primary caregiver.
- The jury convicted Mason of first-degree criminal abuse and later found him a PFO 2, recommending a twenty-year sentence; trial court imposed that sentence.
- Mason appeals asserting directed-verdict and unanimity errors, plus unpreserved penalty-phase irregularities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a basis for a directed verdict on the abuse charge? | Mason claims elements not proven under any theory. | Mason contends evidence did not prove abuse elements beyond reasonable doubt. | No directed-verdict entitlement; sufficient evidence under at least one theory. |
| Did the instruction on multiple abuse theories deny a unanimous verdict? | Encompassing three alternative theories without all being supported violates unanimity. | Inclusion of alternatives is permissible; only surplus theories risk non-unanimity if supported by evidence. | Unpalpable error; evidence supported some theories, but not all; no palpable unanimity error. |
| Do penalty-phase errors require palpable-error relief? | Unpreserved penalty-phase irregularities, including admissibility and PFO proof, merit relief. | No palpable error; exhibits and testimony supported PFO and parole issues; no reversible error. | Penalty-phase errors do not warrant palpable-error relief; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (directed-verdict standards and sufficiency review guidance)
- Whitmore v. Commonwealth, 92 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2002) (unanimity concerns when multiple theories exist)
- Mixon v. Commonwealth, 827 S.W.2d 689 (Ky. 1992) (evidence-admission and reliance on documentary records for PFO)
- Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010) (palpable-error standard for superfluous jury-instruction language)
- Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2004) (serious-physical-injury interpretation under KRS 500.080(15))
- Campbell v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 528 (Ky. 1978) (directed-verdict standard and sufficiency review guidance)
- Beasley v. Commonwealth, No. 2001-SC-000539-MR, 2003 WL 22974888 (Ky. Dec. 18, 2003) (injury pattern and torture/cruel-punishment considerations)
- Carpenter v. Commonwealth, 771 S.W.2d 822 (Ky. 1989) (statutory interpretation of may and abuse context)