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

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

Text: A person commits first-degree desecration of venerated objects when, other than authorized by law, he intentionally excavates or disinters human remains for the purpose of commercial sale or exploitation of the remains themselves or of objects buried contemporaneously with the remains. [12] A person commits theft by unlawful taking when he [t]akes or exercises control over movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof. . . . [13] Theft by unlawful taking is a Class A misdemeanor unless the value of the property in question is $300 or more, in which case the offense is a Class D felony. Terry was convicted of the felony version of the offense. When the elements of first-degree desecration of venerated objects are compared with the elements of theft by unlawful taking over $300, it becomes clear that Terry's convictions for those offenses did not violate double jeopardy principles. First, theft by unlawful taking over $300 contains a threshold minimum monetary property value for the item(s) taken. By contrast, first-degree desecration of venerated objects contains no such monetary property value requirement. Additionally, desecration of venerated objects in the first degree is complete upon excavation or disinterment of human remains with the intent to exploit commercially the remains themselves or objects buried with them. There is no requirement that the remains or the objects buried with them actually be taken or destroyed. Theft by unlawful taking, by contrast, requires the perpetrator actually to take control of the purloined objects. Thus, Terry committed the crime of desecration of venerated objects when he disinterred Cornett's remains with the intent to exploit commercially the jewelry buried with her body. Terry committed the additional crime of theft by unlawful taking over $300 when he took control over the jewelry buried with Cornett's remains. This situation is akin to the offenses of burglary and theft. A burglary is completed when a person unlawfully enters a building with the intent to commit a crime. [14] The burglar is subject to separate prosecution for any additional offenses committed inside the building, such as theft of property located in the building. [15] Thus, because theft by unlawful taking over $300 and first-degree desecration of venerated objects contain separate elements, Terry's conviction for violating both of those statutes does not violate double jeopardy. Terry's claim that he cannot be convicted of theft by unlawful taking because the items interred with the corpse lost their status as property upon interment was not argued before the trial court and is, therefore, unpreserved. And no palpable error on this point occurred under Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26. Property is broadly defined in the penal code as anything of value, [16] and it is clear that the items taken from the casket had value. We reject Terry's argument that the items interred with a body fall outside the purview of the theft statute because items buried with a person's remains constitute abandoned property. Tellingly, Terry has not cited any authority so holding, nor are we aware of any.