Opinion ID: 2273154
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Palpable Error Standard.

Text: After examining the instructions in detail, we agree with Mason that an error exists by virtue of the inclusion of the cruel confinement language. Since this error is unpreserved, we must now determine whether it rises to the level of being a palpable error. We begin our analysis by acknowledging that erroneous jury instructions are presumed to be prejudicial. [37] And, as previously mentioned, we have forcefully held that [a]ny instruction which permits a conviction on the basis of alternative theories... not supported by the evidence runs afoul of the due process requirement that each juror's verdict be based on a theory of guilt in which the Commonwealth has proven each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. [38] We recently clarified the law as to this precise scenario: unpreserved errors involving superfluous language in jury instructions that would permit a conviction based upon a method of committing an offense permitted by statute but not supported by the evidence. [39] In Travis, the trial court's PFO instruction contain[ed] language describing theories of liability that do not relate to any evidence presented... at trial.... [S]uch language was simply inserted to reflect the various possible theories of statutory liability, notwithstanding their inapplicability to the instant case. [40] We concluded that the instructions containing superfluous theories of guilt were error but that the error was not palpable. [41] We reasoned that there was no real possibility that jurors followed one of the theories presented by the surplus language and, as a result, no real possibility that a unanimous verdict was denied. [42] Similarly, in the case at hand, we conclude that there is no real possibility that a juror voted to convict Mason under the cruel confinement theory when there was no evidence to support that theory, but there was ample evidence to support the other theories of guilt. So there was no probability that the result of the action was altered by the addition of the superfluous theories of guilt in the criminal abuse instruction. We conclude, therefore, that the erroneous criminal abuse instruction fails to constitute palpable error.