James v. Com.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1972 |
| Citation | 482 S.W.2d 92 |
| Parties | Robert Matthew JAMES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
John Tim McCall, Louisville, for appellant.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., James M. Ringo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
GARDNER, Commissioner.
Appellant was adjudged guilty on two counts of illegal sale of narcotics (cocaine) and sentenced to 20 years in the penitentiary and a fine of $20,000 on each count. It was ordered that the sentences run consecutively. We reverse the judgment.
Appellant contends that the court erred in failing to require the Commonwealth to submit a bill of particulars as to what time of day the sales took place, where they took place, who was present, and factual statements of the essential elements of the transactions.
Appellant was arraigned May 3, 1971, made the motion for a bill of particulars May 21, 1971, and was tried June 7, 1971. On the day of trial he moved for a continuance because his counsel had not had time to prepare the case and because his counsel could not adequately represent him until the information asked for in the motion for a bill of particulars was received. The motion for continuance was overruled. There was no explanation as to why a bill of particulars was not filed other than that the attorney for the Commonwealth, at a hearing immediately before the trial, reminded the court there had been no order requiring it.
It is provided by RCr 6.22:
Upon cause shown it is mandatory that the court direct the filing of a bill of particulars unless the motion is made after arraignment, in which event it becomes discretionary with the court as to whether the motion by sustained. It is stated in State v. Dugan, 229 La. 668, 86 So.2d 528, 529 (1956):
'It is well settled that the granting of a bill of particulars is within the sound discretion of the trial judge but the trial judge cannot arbitrarily refuse to order the state to furnish essential particulars necessary for the preparation of a defense.'
In Finch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 419 S.W.2d 146 (1967), it was pointed out that with the innovation of the abbreviated indictment the defendant should be supplied freely with details of the charge against him to enable him to prepare his defense. In the present instance each count in the indictment merely stated appellant sold cocaine to Charles Baker, Sr. 'on or about' a stated date. On or about the date could have covered a period of several days. Appellant should not have been required to have available alibi witnesses for all those days. Nor should he have had to guess whom the Commonwealth might use as corroborating witnesses, if any, nor where the alleged transactions took place. In Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 378 S.W.2d 608 (1964), we said:
Of like import are Commonwealth v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 128 Ky. 749, 110 S.W. 253 (1908); Pipkin v. United States (C.A.5th Cir.), 243 F.2d 491 (1957); United States v. Haskins (C.A.6th Cir.), 345 F.2d 111 (1965). See also Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, section 129, page 283.
In its brief the Commonwealth counters by saying appellant made no attempt to present an alibi defense. It is true that appellant's entire defense could be accurately summed up by his own statement, 'I never sold Mr. Baker nothing.' But the argument begs the point. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baumia v. Commonwealth
...the Commonwealth is permitted to withhold important information requested by the accused cannot be countenanced.” James v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Ky.1972). However, we find no abuse of discretion because the Commonwealth's failure to properly disclose the prior conviction was not ......
-
Jennings v. Commonwealth
...the Commonwealth is permitted to withhold important information requested by the accusedcannot be countenanced." James v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 92, 92 (Ky.1972). We hold that the approach of the trial court in this instance was markedly unfair, and it constituted an abuse of discretion. ......
-
Chestnut v. Com., No. 2007-SC-000154-MR.
...the Commonwealth is permitted to withhold important information requested by the accused cannot be countenanced." James v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Ky.1972). That the statements were Appellant's own is immaterial. The premise underlying RCr 7.24(1) is not only to inform the defendan......
-
Patterson v. State
...of due process). People v. Spencer, 79 Misc.2d 72, 361 N.Y.S.2d 240 (N.Y.1974); State v. Cloutier, 302 A.2d 84 (Me.1973); James v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 92 (Ky.1972). In line with these authorities we recognize the general right of a defendant charged with possession or sale of a prohibi......