Opinion ID: 1769274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Double Jeopardy Issues.

Text: Although not specifically argued by Terry, we will briefly address two additional double jeopardy arguments. It could be argued that Terry's convictions for first-degree desecration of venerated objects and his conviction for violating a grave impermissibly violate double jeopardy principles. Likewise, it could be argued that Terry's convictions for first-degree desecration of venerated objects and criminal mischief violate double jeopardy. But we reject those contentions. In order to violate a grave, one must mutilate[ ] a grave or the shrubbery, grounds, etc., immediately surrounding a grave. [20] By contrast, no mutilation requirement exists in the first-degree desecration of venerated objects statute. We must give effect to the words chosen by the General Assembly in enacting statutes; and if the statute is clear, we are constrained to give effect to the statutes as written. [21] Thus, we must give actual effect to the General Assembly's use of the term mutilate. Although the term mutilate[ ] has not been defined by the General Assembly, its dictionary definition is to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect. . . . [22] In other words, in order to give effect to the General Assembly's decisions (1) to use the term mutilate[] in the violating a grave statute, and (2) not to use mutilated in the desecration of venerated objects statute, the requirement that a grave be mutilated for purposes of the violating a grave statute must be construed not to be identical to the first-degree desecration of venerated object's statutory requirement that human remains be disinterred or excavated. Accordingly, committing an act that constitutes desecration of venerated objects does not simultaneously constitute violating a grave. Another key distinction exists between the desecration of venerated objects offense and the violating a grave offense. In order to commit first-degree desecration of venerated objects, a person must intentionally excavate[ ] or disinter[ ] human remains for the purpose of commercial sale or exploitation of the remains themselves or of objects buried contemporaneously with the remains. [23] Clearly, the desecration of venerated objects offense, unlike violating a grave, contains an additional element in that it requires the actor to have a purpose of commercial gain or exploitation of the contents of a grave. [24] Thus, we reject any contention that double jeopardy bars Terry's convictions for violating a grave and for first-degree desecration of venerated objects. Also, because there is a $1,000 threshold monetary property damage requirement for criminal mischief in the first degree, but no property damage requirement for desecration of venerated objects, Terry's convictions for desecration of venerated objects in the first degree and criminal mischief in the first degree do not violate double jeopardy.