Opinion ID: 2281948
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Blockburger.

Text: Nearly eighty years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in double jeopardy jurisprudence, Blockburger v. United States. [6] In Blockburger, the Court held that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. [7] Kentucky uses the Blockburger double jeopardy test, which we have reduced to this question: is one offense included within another? [8] To determine whether felony theft is included within first-degree robbery, we must closely examine and compare the elements of those offenses. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 514.030 governs theft. At the time of Lloyd's indictment and trial, subsection one of that statute provided, in relevant part, that a person was guilty of theft by unlawful taking if he or she unlawfully... [t]akes or exercises control over movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof.... Subsection two of KRS 514.030 provided that theft by unlawful taking was a Class A misdemeanor unless the value of the property is three hundred dollars ($300) or more, in which case it is a Class D felony.... [9] Lloyd was indicted and convicted of the felony version of theft. [10] So to commit felony theft by unlawful taking a person must: (1) Unlawfully (2) take or exercise control over movable property of another (3) with the intent to deprive the owner, and (4) the value of the property taken must be at least $300 (now $500). Robbery in the first degree, for which Lloyd was indicted and convicted, is governed by KRS 515.020, which has not been amended since first enacted in 1974. KRS 515.020(1) provides, in relevant part, that a person commits first-degree robbery when in the course of committing theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft and [i]s armed with a deadly weapon; or ... [u]ses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument upon any person who is not a participant in the crime. So to commit first-degree robbery, a person must: (1) in the course of committing a theft (2) use or threaten the immediate use of physical force (3) with intent to accomplish the theft (4) while either (a) being armed with a deadly weapon or (b) using or threatening the immediate use of a dangerous instrument upon a person not a participant in the crime. One can quickly see similarities between robbery and theft. But robbery contains elements that differ from theft because theft does not require the perpetrator to use or threaten the immediate use of physical force, nor does theft require that the perpetrator either to be armed with a deadly weapon or to use or threaten the use of a dangerous instrument. So first-degree robbery is not included within theft by unlawful taking. The commentary to KRS 515.020, the first-degree robbery statute, provides that [t]o be convicted under KRS 515.030, an offender must have intended, with his use or threatened use of physical force, to accomplish a theft. Through this requirement, all of the elements of the crime of theft as set forth in KRS 514.030 are incorporated into this offense. [11] In fact, precedent holds that a double jeopardy violation occurs if a person is convicted of both robbery and theft if he steals the same property. [12] Lloyd cites both the commentary to KRS 515.020 and precedent to argue that his convictions for both theft by unlawful taking and robbery violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. But the commentary and the precedent Lloyd cites pre-date our decision in Terry. [13] In Terry, a defendant contended that several of his convictions, including one conviction for felony theft by unlawful taking, violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. In the course of resolving those double jeopardy claims, we relied upon cases from other jurisdictions to recognize for the first time in Kentucky that a threshold monetary amount in a criminal statute is an element of the offense. [14] We reasoned that in order to avoid a directed verdict on a charge with a threshold monetary amount, the Commonwealth must adduce proof satisfying that monetary amount. So [i]f the lack of proof on any aspect of an offense would lead to a directed verdict of acquittal, that aspect must be considered an element of the offense for double jeopardy purposes. [15] After Terry, we employ a general principle that a monetary damage threshold is a distinct element of a criminal offense. [16] In Terry, we applied that general principle to several specific situations, including holding that the then-$300 dollar threshold for felony theft by unlawful taking was an element that distinguished it from first-degree desecration of venerated objects. [17] And our adoption of the monetary damage threshold amount as an element of the crime of theft in Terry appears to be consistent with the general viewpoint expressed by a prominent legal encyclopedia, which provides that [t]he value of the item stolen, when used to differentiate between a felony and misdemeanor offense, is an essential element of the charged crime. [18] The question becomes whether the rationale of Terry requires us to disapprove of the commentary to KRS 515.020 and to overrule precedent holding that a person may not be convicted of both robbery and theft by unlawful taking based upon one common underlying theft. As will be discussed below, we believe that our decision in Terry is a proper exposition of the law but that it does not foreclose Lloyd from obtaining relief because the General Assembly has shown its intent to prevent prosecutions for both theft by unlawful taking and robbery based upon the same underlying theft. Strict application of the Blockburger test in conjunction with our opinion in Terry would, standing alone, lead to a conclusion that there is no double jeopardy violation in this case because each offense contains at least one element that the other does not. But the application of Blockburger is not the end of our analysis because we must also determine if the General Assembly intended for one theft to be prosecuted as both theft by unlawful taking and a robbery.