Malone v. Commonwealth

30 S.W.3d 180, 2000 Ky. LEXIS 130, 2000 WL 1597741
CourtKentucky Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 26, 2000
DocketNo. 99-SC-722-T to 99-SC-724-T
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 30 S.W.3d 180 (Malone v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Kentucky Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Malone v. Commonwealth, 30 S.W.3d 180, 2000 Ky. LEXIS 130, 2000 WL 1597741 (Ky. 2000).

Opinions

GRAVES, Justice.

I. FACTS

Based on a plea of guilty, Appellant, Gilbert Dewayne Malone, was convicted of three felonies in the Jefferson Circuit Court. Malone appealed the convictions on the ground that he was prosecuted by information rather than by indictment. On its own motion, the Court of Appeals requested transfer of the matter to this Court. The only issue before us is whether a circuit court has authority to adjudicate felony charges if the defendant waives his right to be prosecuted by indictment. That is, whether the constitutional requirement of an indictment by a grand [182]*182jury in a prosecution for a felony preempts a court rule which permits a prosecution upon information if the accused so elects.

II. KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION

The preamble to the Kentucky Constitution states the reasons for and purposes of the document. Our Kentucky preamble is brief and simple:

We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

The bill of rights is contained in Sections 1 through 26 of Kentucky’s Constitution. The guarantees of the Kentucky Bill of Rights are derived from the centuries-old struggle of Englishmen to gain personal freedom. The purpose of a bill of rights is to protect individuals from the arbitrary actions of government decision-makers. Among the rights specifically protected in Kentucky’s Constitution is not only the right to have a grand jury indictment as a prerequisite to a felony prosecution, but also the right to a jury trial.

Section 12 of the Kentucky Constitution serves as a check on arbitrary government prosecution by providing that:

No person, for an indictable offense, shall be proceeded against criminally by information, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger, or by leave of court for oppression or misdemeanor in office.

III. THE GRAND JURY

A review of typical Kentucky grand jury procedure is helpful. The prosecutor initiates a grand jury investigation upon evidence of wrongdoing, no matter how slight. The grand jury subsequently must assess whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed. The prosecutor assists the grand jury investigation and in determining which witnesses the grand jury will subpoena, selecting the documents or evidence presented and criminal charges pursued, as well as explaining the law and instructing the grand jury on burden of proof. The grand jury is unable to conduct independent investigations inside the grand jury room. If sufficient evidence of commission of a crime is found, a grand jury may return an indictment but is not constitutionally required to do so. If no indictment is returned, constituting a “no true bill,” the prosecutor may resubmit the case to another grand jury. Double jeopardy or collateral estoppel defenses do not apply to multiple grand jury proceedings. Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret, with only the jurors, prosecutor, witnesses, stenographer, recording device operator or interpreter present.

The indictment is the formal written accusation of a crime, made by a grand jury, and presented to the court for prosecution against the accused person. An indictment issued by a grand jury is merely a charge of commission of a crime and is not any evidence of guilt. Before an individual may be convicted, the charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose for an indictment is merely to inform an accused individual of the essential facts of the charge against him so he will be able to prepare a defense.

The Waiver of Grand Jury Indictment which Malone signed reads, in part, as follows:

I understand that by agreeing to the filing of an information in the Circuit Court I am waiving and giving up my right to have the case presented to the Jefferson County Grand Jury and my right to have any felony charges against me in Jefferson County by indictment only. I understand that the Commonwealth may not proceed against me by information without this waiver. After consultation with my attorney I elect to give up my Kentucky constitutional right [Section 12 of the Kentucky Con[183]*183stitution] to have these charges initiated by the indictment and hereby give the written notice to the circuit court of my intention to allow this prosecution by information as provided in RCr 6.02.

IV.CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is a court’s power to decide a case. As a prerequisite for presiding over the case, a court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter of an offense and of the person of the defendant. That is, two jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied before a court has authority to hear and determine a particular cause of action. Kentucky Constitution Sec. 112(5) and KRS 23A010(1) gives the circuit court jurisdiction of felony offenses.

A criminal prosecution requires the existence of an accusation charging the commission of an offense. Such an accusation either in the form of an indictment or an information, is an essential requisite of jurisdiction. In Kentucky, subject matter jurisdiction over a felony offense may be invoked either by a grand jury indictment or by information in cases where the individual consents. Information is an agreement between the state and the individual to proceed without the formalities of a grand jury indictment.

V.NOTICE OF ACCUSATION OF A CRIME

Substantive due process requires that a defendant be informed of the acts alleged as criminal and the crime with which he is charged. The right to waive a particular form, mode, or kind of accusation in a particular instance is an individual right of the accused. It is a personal privilege that may be waived. Every accused person still enjoys an absolute procedural due process right to be prosecuted by indictment. However, he can be prosecuted by information if he knowingly waives that right.

The purpose of proceeding by information rather than by indictment is to expedite matters for the benefit of alleged offenders who desire such expedition. Although it is designed primarily for the benefit of persons who have no defense, and who wish to plead guilty and begin service of their sentence without awaiting indictment by a grand jury, it is not confined to such persons, and an individual may waive indictment though he or she intends to plead not guilty. The rules governing prosecution by information are identical to those relating to prosecution by indictment.

VI.KENTUCKY RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RCr 6.02 of the 1981 amendments to the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure enable the defendant to waive indictment and consent instead to be proceeded against by information. The provision that no person shall be proceeded against by information for an indictable offense is part of the Bill of Rights and not mentioned in the judicial article. It is reasonably clear that this provision is not jurisdictional, rather it is for the protection of the accused and hence subject to waiver.

VII.USE OF INFORMATIONS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Christopher Hill v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2023
Lori C Mattie v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Kentucky Supreme Court, 2021
Jasman Montgomery v. David Ballard, Warden
827 S.E.2d 403 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2019)
Kelly v. Commonwealth
554 S.W.3d 854 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2018)
Greer v. Commonwealth
514 S.W.3d 566 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2017)
Pursley v. Commonwealth
500 S.W.3d 807 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2016)
Bennington v. Commonwealth
348 S.W.3d 613 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2011)
Hillard v. Commonwealth
158 S.W.3d 758 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2005)
Ernst v. Commonwealth
160 S.W.3d 744 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2005)
Hoskins v. Maricle
150 S.W.3d 1 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2004)
Commonwealth v. Townsend
87 S.W.3d 12 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2002)
Doss v. McDonald
82 S.W.3d 867 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2002)
American General Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Hall
74 S.W.3d 688 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 S.W.3d 180, 2000 Ky. LEXIS 130, 2000 WL 1597741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malone-v-commonwealth-ky-2000.