No - her biggest sin was killing her kid.
I'll check out the story after writing a more general response, because there could be more to this than the OP discusses.
NOT yet knowing the details, her mind could have been warped by the same dangerous species of caregiver burn-out as some other parents who outright murder their disabled kids (and, in certain cases, themselves as well) because they legitimately need far more help than that mythical gravy train for disabled people and their families a startling number of onlookers think the government provides.
She could fall into a small subset who says, 'Sure, they'll put him though months of pain he cannot comprehend and then go back to ignoring this growing boy's self-injurious behaviour [if any] when the cancer is gone.'
Meanwhile, some fundie parents let their kids die of ailments a single course of antibiotics could have cleared up and are given slaps on the wrists because they claim they acted like negligent idiots as an alleged result of their faith.
AFTER having hunted down
the story, I'm still left with questions. Most people likely know someone who has gone through chemo, and it's not wrong to say the poisons needed to kill off cancer sometimes seem worse than the disease itself. The boy, Jeremy, age nine, may not even have understood why he was sick or why the medicine seemed to make him even sicker.
His mother, whom the prosecutor painted as angry to be raising her son alone, had split from her husband around the same time as the cancer hit...and I suspect there's a serious element of truth to the prosecutor's claim (especially since she repeatedly lied to her son's oncologist about his compliance with the at-home course of medication).
She killed her son. I don't know that locking her away for a decade would accomplish much - not as a deterrent to others, not as an effective punishment for her, and not for the protection of society. The System needs additional tools to deal with this kind of thing.