Appeals court throws out 2003 manslaughter convictions

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has overturned the 2003 manslaughter convictions of a Whitley County man and his nephew, who were charged in the death of the man’s 18-month-old son.
On Aug. 1, 2003, a Whitley Circuit Jury convicted Darrell and his uncle Curtis Lawson of second-degree manslaughter in connection with the Nov. 8, 2000, death of Curtis’ son, Aaron Lawson. The jury recommended that each serve five years in prison.
On Nov. 8, 2000, a Ford Bronco driven by either Darrell Lawson or Curtis Lawson went off the road, and struck a tree killing Curtis Aaron Lawson. Each claims that the other was driving. Both men were allegedly drinking as they drove around for several hours with the child in the back of the vehicle.
In its verdict, the jury never ruled on who the driver of the vehicle was.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently overturned both convictions on the grounds of faulty jury instructions, and ruled that the charges against Darrell Lawson should be dismissed, but that Curtis Lawson could be retried in the killing.
“While we do not fault the jury for reaching its conclusions, we do believe the instruction to be so erroneous as to mandate reversal for each defendant,” justices wrote in the ruling. “By failing to require the jury to make a finding of the specific act or acts engaged in by Curtis and Darrell that form each defendant’s criminal culpability, the instructions erroneously permitted the jury not to reach the main issue of this case – who was actually driving the Bronco at the time of the fatal crash.”
Prosecutors pursued murder convictions against both men at some point, and argued that even if the other was driving, each man had a duty to see that the child wasn’t placed in harm’s way.
In its ruling the court of appeals ruled that prosecutors can only retry Curtis Lawson for second-degree manslaughter or a lesser offense.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Allen Trimble said that he does plan to retry Curtis Lawson, and he plans to ask the jury to hand down a more severe penalty than Curtis Lawson received during the first trial.
During the initial trial, Curtis Lawson received a five-year prison sentence, but maximum penalty for second-degree manslaughter is 10 years in prison.
The opinion did not directly address the issue of whether Darrell Lawson, if he weren’t the driver, had a legal duty to prevent Curtis Lawson from driving while intoxicated with the child in the vehicle.
However, Justice John D. Minton issued a separate opinion in the case noting that he didn’t feel state statutes imposed a duty of care in regards to the child on Darrell Lawson or anyone else.
“The absence of a legal duty does not mean that Darrell owed no moral duty toward the victim. Rather, it means only that Darrell cannot be held criminally liable for failing to prevent the child’s death,” Minton wrote in a footnote to the ruling.
Trimble said that the ruling in Darrell Lawson’s case didn’t surprise him.
“There was always some question as to Darrell’s case,” Trimble said. “The difference would be that on a duty to care case, a parent has a higher duty to care than a individual, who is not the legal custodian. We are disappointed by the ruling, but not surprised.”