Case ID: ky_218/html/0651-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chief Justice Clay", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hamilton v. Commonwealth.
    (Decided March 4, 1927.)
    Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.
    1. Indictment and Information — Court Should Require Commonwealth to Elect Between Charges in Indictment Charging Many-Separate Offenses Under Prohibition Law. — Conviction under indictment charging many separate offenses under prohibition law will be reversed; commonwealth must elect which charges it will prosecute.
    '2. Criminal Law — Trial Court’s Failure on Second Trial to Obey Mandate of Court of Appeals to Direct Commonwealth to Elect Between Several Indictment Charges Requires Reversal. — Where mandate of Court of Appeals directs trial court to require the commonwealth to elect under which of several separate charges of the indictment it would prosecute, failure to so direct,-' without suggestion from accused, requires reversal of second conviction.
    PICKLESIMER & STEELE for appellant.
    FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and CHAS. F. CREAL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Clay

Reversing.

This is- the second appeal of this case. On his first trial appellant was convicted under a warrant charging him with unlawfully selling, keeping for sale, having in his possession, transporting and giving away spirituous liquors. On the first appeal it was held that, as appellant’s demurrer to the indictment was overruled, the court should have required the commonwealth to elect which charge it would prosecute, and the cause was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 633, 265 S. W. 44.

On the return of the case it was the duty of the circuit court to obey the mandate of this court without suggestion from the accused, and require the commonwealth to elect. Tackett v. Commonwealth, 214 Ky. 680, 283 S. W. 1002. This was not done, and appellant was again convicted. Though we regret the necessity therefor, the only action that this court can take in the circumstances is to reverse the judgment.

No other questions aré passed on.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions to require the commonwealth to elect which charge it will prosecute.