Opinion ID: 1730076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: specificity of the charges

Text: Appellant complains that the indictment so lacked specificity as not to afford him adequate notice so that he could defend against the charges. Each count alleged the offense to have occurred on or about certain dates. When the nature of the offenses involved is considered, the trial testimony regarding dates was quite naturally confused and somewhat uncertain. In at least one instance the victim testified about acts which are charged as separate offenses as having occurred on the same day as contrasted with another place in his testimony where he referred to the second incident as having occurred on another Saturday. Appellant filed a pretrial motion for a bill of particulars, to which no response was ever made. Appellant never pursued the motion for a ruling nor objected to the failure to respond. RCr 8.18 specifies that defenses and objections based on defects. . . in the indictment may be raised only by motion before trial. In Cole v. Commonwealth, Ky., 405 S.W.2d 753 (1966), we held that defects of this nature in the indictment are waived by failure to make timely objection. So also in Wood v. Commonwealth, Ky., 567 S.W.2d 121 (1978). By failing to timely object before trial to the failure to respond to the bill of particulars, the appellant is precluded from raising this issue on appeal. Clark v. Commonwealth, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 241 (1967). James v. Commonwealth, Ky., 482 S.W.2d 92 (1972), cited by the appellant in support of his position, is not in point because there the objection to failure to grant a bill of particulars was properly preserved. A subissue is whether the indefiniteness of the evidence regarding dates is so significant that it is, per se, a failure of due process. We are cited to no case finding it so in similar circumstances and we know of none. It is sufficient to say that the evidence was as specific as is usually found in such cases and ample to separately identify the various offenses charged. If the appellant required more specificity to defend, he should have pursued his requirements by pretrial motion.