Court Opinion

ID: 9681604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:53:06.625544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.738633
License: Public Domain

*451LAMBERT, Justice,
concurring.
In 1992, six of this Court’s seven justices joined in Stark v. Commonwealth, Ky., 828 S.W.2d 608 (1992). Today that decision has been overruled. I write to express the view that Stark was not wrong and that the majority has overruled sound precedent.
In Stark the issue was whether an indictment properly charged robbery under KRS 515.020. This statute requires the use of threatened use “of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft_” The distinguishing feature between robbery and theft is force upon another person. The indictment in Stark charged that the defendant “committed the offense of Robbery in the First Degree, by threatening the immediate use of physical force upon Moby Dick Restaurant....” Quite properly, this Court held that it was necessary to charge that the force was committed upon a person, not simply upon a place of business. Insightfully, the Court said “Inanimate objects or businesses may not be the victim of robbery as provided by the statute. Robbery can be committed only against a person.” Id. at 606.
By its holding in the instant case, this Court has all but abandoned the requirement that a pleading narratively state a public offense. Under the majority opinion, with its heavy reliance on bills of particulars and waiver of defects, an indictment which merely labels an offense will be sufficient.
In my view, this ease can be harmonized with our opinion in Stark. While Stark charged the use of physical force upon an inanimate object, the indictment here charged that four individuals robbed a place of business. By definition, robbery embraces the concept of force against a person.
For the foregoing reasons, I disagree with the majority opinion, but would concur with the result.