Workman v. Com.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1979
• Citation: 580 S.W.2d 206
• Parties: Bobby WORKMAN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 206

580 S.W.2d 206

Bobby WORKMAN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Jan. 16, 1979.

Jack Emory Farley, Public Defender, Edward C. Monahan, Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, for appellant.

Robert F. Stephens, Atty. Gen., John W. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

LUKOWSKY, Justice.

On January 13, 1975, Workman was indicted for the murder of Chaffins which occurred on May 4, 1969. His extradition from Michigan was completed on August 26, 1976. On September 9, 1976, he entered a plea of not guilty. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, on what may be charitably described as far less than overwhelming evidence, on December 30, 1977. He appeals and we reverse.

On November 21, 1977, Workman filed a motion to dismiss the indictment supported by an affidavit which alleged:

"(A)n offer was made by the . . . Commonwealth . . . that if the defendant would voluntarily submit to a polygraph examination by the Kentucky State Police, and in the event that that test indicated that the defendant had no involvement in the shooting of James Chaffins, the charge would be dismissed. The defendant did submit to the examination and passed the aforementioned test, as well as a separate test conducted by Marcy Consulting Agency, Incorporated, of Dearborn, Michigan, and another polygraph examination conducted by Sgt. Godby of the Kentucky State Police."

Confirmatory copies of the reports of these examinations and their results appear in the record. The Kentucky State Police Polygraph report discloses that their tests were given on March 28, 1977, at the request of the Commonwealth's Attorney.

The Commonwealth filed no response to the motion and did not challenge the affidavit or the reports. The trial court denied the motion in an order which gave no reason for its action.

It is plain that the Commonwealth, acting through its agents who had apparent if not actual authority, entered into an agreement with Workman to abandon their prosecution of him if he passed a polygraph examination given by the Kentucky State Police. It is equally apparent that even though he took and passed such examination on March 28, 1977, the Commonwealth took no steps to fulfill its bargain as late as November 21, 1977, when Workman asked the circuit court to enforce the bargain.

The question is not whether the Commonwealth's bargain was wise or foolish. The question is whether the Commonwealth should be permitted to break its word.

The standards of the market place do not and should not govern the relationship between the government and a citizen. People v. Reagan, 395 Mich. 306, 235 N.W.2d 581, 585 (1975). "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575, 72 L.Ed. 944, 960 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). If the government breaks its word, it breeds contempt for integrity and good faith. It destroys the confidence of citizens in the operation of their government and invites them to disregard their obligations. That way lies anarchy. We deal here with a "pledge of public faith a promise made by state officials and one that should not be lightly disregarded." State v. Davis, Fla.App., 188 So.2d 24, 27 (1966).

The attorney for the Commonwealth, with the permission of the court, may dismiss an indictment prior to the submission of the case. RCr 9.64. The motion of an attorney for the Commonwealth to dismiss an indictment may be granted or denied by the judge in his discretion. Rader v. Commonwealth, 287 Ky. 282, 284, 152 S.W.2d 937, 938 (1941). It is axiomatic that the exercise of such discretion must be reasoned and supported by the record. Kidd v. Commonwealth, 255 Ky. 498, 505-06, 74 S.W.2d 944, 947 (1934); United States v. Cowan, C.A. 5th, 524 F.2d 504, 513-515 (1975).

"( N)o distinction can be taken between the government as prosecutor and the government as judge." Olmstead v. United States, supra at 470, 48 S.Ct. at 575 (Holmes, J., dissenting). When as here, our...