Cooley v. Commonwealth
1991 WL 269778, 821 S.W.2d 90, 1991 Ky. LEXIS 196 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of both the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 13 of the Kentucky Constitution prohibits successive prosecutions for receiving stolen property when all the property was initially received at the same time, even if portions of it were subsequently retained or disposed of separately, as Kentucky's receiving stolen property statute (KRS 514.110) creates a single offense with alternative means of commission.
Facts:
- Cooley came into possession of twenty-six stolen firearms in Mason County, Kentucky.
- Cooley transported all twenty-six guns from Mason County to Bourbon County.
- In Bourbon County, Cooley disposed of twenty-four of the firearms by selling them to various individuals.
- Cooley retained two of the guns, an Uzi machine gun and a .357 magnum pistol, and took them back to Mason County.
- Police discovered the two guns Cooley had kept during a search of his residence in Mason County.
Procedural Posture:
- Cooley was indicted in Mason County, Kentucky, for receiving the two guns he had kept.
- Shortly after the Mason County indictment, Cooley was indicted in Bourbon County, Kentucky, for receiving, retaining, or disposing of other handguns from the same incident.
- Cooley was first brought to trial in Mason County and was convicted of receiving stolen property.
- Cooley was then brought to trial in Bourbon County and was again convicted of receiving stolen property, despite his plea of double jeopardy.
- Cooley appealed the Bourbon County conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court, arguing misinterpretation of the statute and double jeopardy violations.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause permit multiple prosecutions for receiving stolen property when all the property was obtained at the same time, but subsequently handled (retained and disposed of) in separate locations and at different times?
Opinions:
Majority - Lambert, Justice
No, the double jeopardy clauses prohibit multiple prosecutions in this scenario. The Kentucky Supreme Court determined that KRS 514.110, which criminalizes receiving, retaining, or disposing of stolen property, describes different means of committing a single offense, not separate offenses. The crime of receiving stolen property is considered complete upon the initial receipt of the property. Therefore, any subsequent retention or disposition of that same property does not constitute a new, separate offense for double jeopardy purposes. The court also relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Grady v. Corbin, which held that double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution if the government must prove conduct for which the defendant has already been prosecuted. In this case, to convict Cooley in Bourbon County, the Commonwealth had to prove that he received all the guns in Mason County, which was the same conduct for which he had already been indicted and convicted in Mason County. The court concluded that Section 13 of the Kentucky Constitution affords protections coextensive with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding double jeopardy.
Dissenting - Wintersheimer, Justice
Yes, double jeopardy does not apply here. Justice Wintersheimer argued that the Mason County prosecution was based on Cooley's unlawful retention of the two firearms, while the Bourbon County prosecution was based on his illegal disposition (sale) of the twenty-four firearms. These, in his view, constituted distinct criminal impulses and actions, rather than a single continuous act. He contended that KRS 514.110's language regarding receipt, retention, or disposition allows for separate prosecutions based on these different theories, especially when the actions occur in different counties and at different times. The dissent found the majority's reliance on Grady v. Corbin misplaced, arguing that the facts indicated two distinct criminal acts, not a single one, and that the elements of proof for retention versus disposition were different. He asserted that the Constitution should not provide a 'volume discount' for criminal acts and that separate impulses should lead to separate penalties.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of Kentucky's receiving stolen property statute, establishing that 'receives, retains, or disposes of' are merely alternative means of committing a single offense. It limits the ability of prosecutors to bring multiple charges for what originates from a single act of receiving stolen property, reinforcing the protection against double jeopardy. The decision's reliance on Grady v. Corbin's 'same conduct' test was critical at the time, although Grady was later overruled by United States v. Dixon, which reverted to the Blockburger 'same elements' test. Nonetheless, this case remains important for understanding Kentucky's double jeopardy jurisprudence in the context of single criminal transactions with multiple aspects.
