Opinion ID: 1769274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Arraign on Superseding Indictment.

Text: Having determined that Terry's convictions do not constitute double jeopardy, we now turn to his contention that his convictions must be reversed because he was not arraigned on the superseding indictment prior to trial. We must agree, in part. As previously mentioned, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment issued against Terry about three weeks before his scheduled jury trial. That superseding indictment added two criminal mischief charges, and it also changed Terry's role in the other originally charged offenses from being complicit in the commission of those offenses to being the principal actor in the commission of the offenses. Under Kentucky law, an arraignment and taking of a plea are necessary to a valid conviction. [25] Yet, the record does not reflect that Terry was arraigned on the superseding indictment. And Terry clearly apprised the trial court of the fact that he had not been arraigned, which properly preserved this issue for appellate review. We utterly reject the Commonwealth's disingenuous argument that Terry did not bring the lack of an arraignment on the superseding indictment to the trial court's attention. Terry filed a written pretrial motion for a continuance in which he stated that he had not been arraigned on the superseding indictment. And in his oral motion for a continuance shortly before the trial began, Terry again reminded the trial court that he had not been arraigned on the superseding indictment. Since we are bound by the record presented to us, we also reject the Commonwealth's baseless speculation that because the trial transcript reflects that a break of indeterminate time occurred between Terry's oral motion for a continuance and the start of voir dire that it can only be presumed that [Terry] was arraigned out of the presence of the court reporter between the in-chambers hearing and the beginning of voir dire.  Terry was convicted of criminal mischief charges of which he had never been formally advised, and to which he had never entered a formal plea of not guilty. A criminal conviction may not be had on a new charge in a superseding indictment to which a defendant has not entered a formal plea, even if the new charges are based on the same essential underlying facts as the original indictment. So Terry's criminal mischief convictions must be vacated. A more difficult question exists as to whether the remainder of Terry's convictions must also be vacated. There are minor grammatical changes between the original and superseding indictments as to the desecration of venerated objects, violating a grave, theft by unlawful taking, and abuse of a corpse charges. But the most important change is the fact that the original indictment charged Terry and the other named defendants with complicity to having committed those offenses. By contrast, the superseding indictment eliminated the co-defendants and the complicity language from the charges. Although better practice would be for a defendant to be arraigned on all charges in a superseding indictment, rearraignment is absolutely necessary only if the charges in the superseding indictment are materially different than those in the original indictment. [26] Thus, we must determine if the changes contained in the superseding indictment were material. Removing the element of complicity from the charges against Terry did not mean that Terry was suddenly charged with a wholly new set of offenses. [27] Consistent with that reasoning, we have recently held that allowing the Commonwealth to amend an indictment during trial to add complicity language to a charge did not prejudice a defendant's substantial rights. [28] By the same token, Terry's substantial rights must not have been prejudiced by the removal of complicity language in the superseding indictment. Terry was, by virtue of the original indictment, well aware of the pertinent underlying facts relied upon by the Commonwealth. [29] In short, Terry has not specifically shown any prejudice that he suffered as a result of his not being arraigned on the charges that were amended by the superseding indictment. Under the particular facts of this case, the lack of a rearraignment on the desecration of venerated objects, violating a grave, theft by unlawful taking, and abuse of a corpse charges does not require reversal since Terry has not shown specific prejudice stemming from the lack of rearraignment on those charges.