Court Opinion

ID: 9664392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:18:10.478485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.008404
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice,
concurring:
I also concur with the well-reasoned opinion of my esteemed colleague, Justice Venters.
In those instances where the Commonwealth is assured it has indicted an innocent person and there is no possibility of re-indictment in the matter, it should move, as a matter of fairness, to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, so as to fully clear such person’s name. Where, in such rare situations, it does not, but seeks only a dismissal -without prejudice, the trial court may upon an appropriate request from the defendant and after an appropriate hearing and findings, deny the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, giving both the Commonwealth and the defendant a trial by jury to answer the questions presented and end the matter appropriately. RCr 9.64 “[Wjhether to grant or withhold that approval is a matter of judicial discretion.” Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 16 (Ky.2004).
However, here, as noted by the trial court, no objection was made to the ex-parte dismissal until after such a lapse of time as precluded the Commonwealth, and thus, the Court, from reinstating the indictment so as to facilitate a trial by jury on the questions of guilt or acquittal. Nor, was the Court of Appeals, or this Court, asked to address any question of discretion or due process which may have resulted in a reversal and reinstatement of the indictment so that Appellant might force the issue of trial or dismissal with prejudice.
Absent such a request in this instance, I concur with my esteemed colleague, Justice Venters that we should not answer a question that was not asked.