Opinion ID: 1769274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: First-Degree Desecration of Venerated Objects and Theft by Unlawful Taking

Text: Theft by unlawful taking requires that a defendant [t]ake [or exercise] control over movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof. . . . KRS 514.020. Appellant argues that objects buried with a body lose their character as property, as contemplated by the theft statute because KRS 525.105 converts the property into venerated objects. He also argues that a person cannot be convicted of desecration and theft of the same object. The first argument is simply incorrect, and the second is based on a misunderstanding of the act prohibited by the desecration statute. The desecration statute does not alter the character of an object interred with a body, nor are such objects abandoned and rendered there for the taking, as Appellant implies. Objects interred with human remains belong to the estate of the decedent or to the decedent's successor in interest, or perhaps to the original owner. Such objects are neither abandoned property, nor do they cease to be property within the purview of theft statutes. The criminal act described by the desecration statute is excavation or disinterment of human remains with the intent to commercially exploit the remains or objects buried with them. Violation of this statute does not require that objects buried with the remains be destroyed, damaged, or taken. The crime is completed upon the excavation or disinterment with the requisite intent. Thereafter, the act of taking the human remains or objects buried with the remains constitutes the separate crime of theft by unlawful taking. Application of these statutes is analogous to the crimes of burglary and theft. The crime of burglary is complete upon unlawful entry accompanied by the intent to commit a crime. Theft of property or other criminal acts that occur thereafter may be separately prosecuted. [5] Therefore, Appellant's convictions for first-degree desecration of venerated objects and theft by unlawful taking do not violate double jeopardy principles. As explained hereinabove, I believe Appellant's convictions for two counts of criminal mischief and one count of violating graves were obtained in violation of double jeopardy principles. These convictions should be vacated and dismissed. Appellant's convictions for desecration of venerated objects and theft by unlawful taking should be affirmed. SCHRODER, J., joins this opinion dissenting in part.