Wylie v. Commonwealth
1977 Ky. LEXIS 513, 556 S.W.2d 1 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kentucky's Rules of Criminal Procedure, an indictment is sufficient if it plainly states the essential facts of the specific offense and informs the accused without misleading them, even if it omits an element like property value that differentiates a felony from a misdemeanor, provided the accused has procedural means to clarify the charge.
Facts:
- On or about September 17, 1975, Roy Dean Wylie was apprehended by police officers in Lexington.
- Wylie was found to be in possession of a quantity of silver and a stereo set.
- The silver and stereo set had previously been stolen from Mrs. R. M. Gay.
- Wylie testified that he was moving the property from a motel room occupied by an acquaintance named Larry Williams.
- Larry Williams had directed Wylie to put the property "underneath this trailer back behind the Continental Inn."
- Mrs. R. M. Gay testified that the silver Wylie possessed was worth thousands of dollars and the stereo set was worth approximately $1000.
Procedural Posture:
- A Fayette County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Roy Dean Wylie with unlawfully receiving stolen property from Mrs. R. M. Gay, knowing it was stolen.
- A jury in the trial court found Roy Dean Wylie guilty of knowingly receiving stolen property and fixed his punishment at a year’s imprisonment.
- Roy Dean Wylie appealed the judgment to the Kentucky Supreme Court, asserting constitutional infirmities with the indictment and jury instructions.
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 an indictment for receiving stolen property, which omits the property's value, sufficiently charge a felony offense under Kentucky's Rules of Criminal Procedure if it otherwise informs the accused of the specific offense and provides means to ascertain the value?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM.
Yes, an indictment for receiving stolen property, which omits the property's value, can sufficiently charge a felony offense under Kentucky's Rules of Criminal Procedure if it otherwise informs the accused of the specific offense and provides means to ascertain the value. The court reasoned that under the more liberal Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr 6.10), an indictment is sufficient if it contains a plain, concise, and definite statement of the essential facts constituting the specific offense, informs the accused of the charge, and does not mislead them. The indictment against Wylie clearly charged the public offense of knowingly receiving stolen property, and the court found that Wylie was not misled, being adequately informed of the charge. Any doubt Wylie had regarding whether he faced a misdemeanor or a felony could have been resolved through available procedural means, such as filing a motion for a bill of particulars under RCr 6.22. The description of the property as 'a large quantity of silver and a stereo set' was deemed sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that the value would exceed the $100 felony threshold, serving as an 'adequate forewarning.' The court also noted that Wylie failed to object to the felony jury instruction or the prosecutor's closing remarks at trial, thus not preserving these issues for appellate review. The court explicitly overruled any conflicting portions of its prior decision in Duncan v. Commonwealth.
Analysis:
This case significantly liberalizes the requirements for indictments in Kentucky, moving away from strict, formalistic interpretations of pleading to a more substantive approach focused on providing adequate notice to the accused. By emphasizing the availability of a bill of particulars (RCr 6.22), the court shifts some responsibility onto the defendant to clarify ambiguous charges rather than relying solely on the indictment's express wording. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not unduly impede the prosecution of crimes, as long as due process rights to notice are fundamentally met through reasonable interpretation and available legal tools. It could lead to fewer indictments being dismissed on technical grounds relating to specificity.
