Opinion ID: 1777841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: former code of practice in criminal cases

Text: The old Criminal Code mandated the use of fact pleading. For example, Criminal Code § 124 provided: Facts concerning which it must be direct and certain. The indictment must be direct and certain as regards  1. The party. The party charged. 2. The offense. The offense charged. 3. The county. The county in which the offense was committed. 4. The circumstances of the offense. The particular circumstances of the offense charged, if they be necessary to constitute a complete offense. In addition, Criminal Code § 122(2) required that an indictment contain: A statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended; and with such degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment, on conviction, according to the right of the case. (Emphasis added.) Prior to the promulgation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure on January 1, 1963, this court interpreted section 122 of the old Criminal Code of Practice as requiring an indictment to contain every essential element of the crime charged. Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 21, 23 (1966). Duncan, supra , illustrates the specificity required by fact pleading. There, the indictment charged the defendant with the crime of Armed Robbery and stated the crime was committed by force, violence and arms. The Court reversed Duncan's conviction for armed robbery because of the failure of the indictment to describe the arms as a pistol, gun, firearm or deadly weapon, those being the terms used in the armed robbery statute. Although Duncan may have been fully aware of the details of the charge made against him, the Court could not indulge that presumption because of prior cases under the Criminal Code and because of the plain command of Criminal Code section 124. Duncan, 330 S.W.2d at 423.