Court Opinion

ID: 9682287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:08:58.340944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:38.624004
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which reverses a portion of the judgment of conviction.
The fact that Jackson, supra, precludes conviction for both theft and receiving, does not require the prosecutor to elect between the two offenses and vacate one or the other as Jackson states specifically at page 833.
If the conviction for theft by unlawful taking should later be reversed by further appeal the judgment for knowingly receiving stolen property may be reinstated.
The judge may vacate the merged offenses, but I do not believe the prosecutor is required to elect to his prejudice.
KRS 514.030 does not prevent a conviction for theft where the defendant exercised control of the property and automobile in both Tennessee and Kentucky. The theft of a vehicle is not complete with the taking or exercising of control because the joy-riding statute, KRS 514.100, may be applicable. However, the continuous exercise of control which occurred in Kentucky is indicative of the distinguishing element of this offense, “with intent to deprive.”
I would affirm the conviction in all respects.