A Florida appellate court last week reversed the 2008 conviction of a Key Largo mom for starving her infant daughter, saying the prosecutor had prejudiced the jury by introducing evidence that the mother at one time considered aborting the child.

"It was not only not relevant, but any conceivable relevance was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant," a three-judge panel from Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeal wrote.

Amy Stephenson, 29, has been serving a 25-year prison sentence in the Broward Correctional Institute since she was sentenced on the aggravated manslaughter conviction in March 2008.

Her attorney, Michael Cohen of Fort Lauderdale, said he'll now file a motion to have Stephenson released on bond, pending an appeal by the state, or failing that, a retrial.

"We are just glad that the court has treated this case so seriously and we are going to continue to vie for the rights of our client," Cohen said.

A spokeswoman at the office of Attorney General Bill McCollum had no comment on the state's next step.

"Our office is reviewing our options and will make a decision at a later date," Deputy Communications Director Ryan Wiggins said in an e-mail.

In January 2008, it took a Key West jury just 1¬½ hours to convict Stephenson of neglecting and starving her 13-month-old daughter, Jasmine.

Jasmine weighed 6 pounds, 9 ounces when she died in September 2006 from chronic malnutrition; and Stephenson had failed to take her daughter, who was born prematurely, to monthly visits with a pediatrician and lung experts. Jurors during the trial flinched at images of the baby that showed skin, bones and little else.

But last Wednesday, the appellate panel ruled that then-Chief Assistant State Attorney Catherine Vogel had made a "fundamental error" when on cross-examination she asked Stephenson if she had ever thought about aborting Jasmine.

"When I first learned that I was pregnant," Stephenson replied.

Vogel brought the issue back up during closing arguments in an attempt to impress it upon jurors.

Citing numerous examples of case law, the appeals panel ruled that bringing up such an inflammatory issue, which could cause jurors to look askance at Stephenson, fundamentally tainted the jury's ability to weigh the evidence.

"Not only is there no relevance to the mother's consideration of abortion to the legal issues at hand, but its only arguable relevance makes its admission all the more inappropriate: It is apparently the thought that a person who considers abortion is more likely to have killed the child not aborted," the panel wrote.

Vogel on Wednesday said she disagreed with the appellate court and that the Attorney General's Office has told her it will ask for a rehearing.

"The defense didn't even object to the question," she said. "If they thought it was inflammatory and thought it was improper, why didn't the defense attorney object at the time?"

rsilk@keysnews.com