COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. STEWART OLIVER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : MAY 22, 2008
TO BE PUBLISHED
,;VUyrrUt:e
Courf -of
2006-SC-000385-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NUMBER 2004-CA-001219
McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT NO . 03-CR-00100-01
V.
STEWART OLIVER
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE ABRAMSON
AFFIRMING
This Court has never expressly addressed whether a criminal defendant is
entitled to have the jury instructed on a lesser-included misdemeanor offense which is
supported by the evidence but which was time-barred by KRS 500 .050(2) at the time of
indictment . We now hold that a defendant is entitled to the lesser-included offense
instruction and, that by requesting jury consideration of an "expired" misdemeanor, the
defendant waives his statute of limitations defense to any resulting conviction .
Recognizing that this rule was unavailable at the time of Appellee Stewart Oliver's trial
and that the trial court and all parties misperceived the consequences of the defendant's
request for expired misdemeanor instructions, we affirm the Court of Appeals' reversal
of Stewart Oliver's convictions, albeit on different grounds, and remand this case for a
new trial .
RELEVANT FACTS
In November 1999, Beneficial Finance, Inc., a Paducah lender, loaned about
$3,000 .00 to Shane Oliver, Stewart Oliver's son . When the loan became delinquent
and Shane denied having applied for it, Paducah police investigated and discovered
that Stewart and his former wife, Beverly Oliver, had obtained the loan by forging
Shane's signature on the application documents and the proceeds check. In April 2003,
a McCracken County Grand Jury indicted both Stewart and Beverly for theft by
deception, over $300.00, a class D felony (KRS 514.040), and for second-degree
criminal possession of a forged instrument, also a class D felony (KRS 516.060). They
were jointly tried in March 2004, and both were convicted of both crimes. By Judgment
entered June 1, 2004, the trial court sentenced Stewart to two concurrent two-year
prison terms .
The proof at trial showed that at the time of the loan, in November 1999, Stewart
and Beverly had recently separated and that their marriage had since been dissolved .
Each accused the other of instigating the fraud . Beverly admitted forging Shane's
signatures, but claimed that she did so only at Stewart's urgent behest and that it was
Stewart who passed the documents to the loan officer and who disposed of the
proceeds. Stewart claimed that as a result of their separation Beverly had been in need
of funds, that it was she who obtained and returned the loan application, and that his
involvement in the fraud had extended no further than chauffeuring her to and from the
loan office . At the conclusion of proof, each defendant requested that the jury be given
the option of finding him or her guilty of facilitating the charged offenses . The
Commonwealth objected on the ground that facilitation of a class D felony is a class A
misdemeanor, KRS 506 .080(2), and that the one-year statute of limitations for
misdemeanors had expired before Stewart's and Beverly's indictments . The trial court
indicated that were it not for the limitations issue the evidence would have entitled both
defendants to facilitation instructions . The trial court ultimately denied those
instructions, however, because in its view the expired misdemeanors had ceased to be
viable verdicts a rational juror could return.
Stewart appealed to the Court of Appeals, and that Court, agreeing with him that
the trial court erred when it refused to instruct on facilitation, reversed his conviction and
remanded for a new trial . We granted the Commonwealth's motion for discretionary
review to consider whether a trial court may give a lesser-included-offense instruction
when the lesser-included offense instruction requested by a defendant relates to an
expired misdemeanor.
ANALYSIS
In reversing Stewart's conviction, the Court of Appeals relied on what it deemed
to be the implicit holding in Reed v. Commonwealth, 738 S .W.2d 818 (Ky. 1987). In that
case, this Court reversed Reed's rape conviction because the trial court had failed to
give an instruction on second-degree sexual abuse, a misdemeanor that appeared to
have expired prior to Reed's indictment. Although Reed does not address the
limitations issue, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Reed implicitly stands for the
proposition that
the statute of limitations for misdemeanors simply does not
apply when a criminal defendant who is being tried for a
felony offense requests a lesser included misdemeanor
instruction . If the evidence supports such an instruction, the
trial court must give it.
Oliver v. Commonwealth , 2004-CA-001219-MR (April 28, 2006). The Commonwealth
takes issue with this holding as reading too much into Reed's silence . In particular, the
Court of Appeals appears to have assumed that by requesting a misdemeanor
instruction the defendant submits to the possibility of misdemeanor punishment,
notwithstanding the statute of limitations . As the Commonwealth points out, however,
the trial court and the parties in this case made the opposite assumption, i.e., they
assumed that even if an instruction were given and a misdemeanor verdict returned, the
statute of limitations would preclude conviction of and punishment for the expired
offense. It was that assumption which led the trial court to conclude that it would be
improper to instruct the jury regarding a meaningless verdict . The Commonwealth
maintains that by asserting both a right to a facilitation instruction as well as a right to
the limitations defense, Stewart raised an issue neither addressed nor controlled by
Reed, and that the trial court correctly determined that where conviction and
punishment is not an option neither is the misdemeanor instruction . Although we agree
with the Commonwealth that Stewart could not seek the instruction without waiving his
limitations defense, the record does not support the Commonwealth's assertion that
Stewart expressly declined to waive his limitation right. Indeed that option was simply
not presented to him because of the aforementioned assumption under which the trial
court and parties proceeded .
In delineating the interplay between the right to a lesser-included offense
instruction and the right to a statute of limitations defense, we begin with KRS
500.050(2), which provides as follows:
Except as otherwise expressly provided, the prosecution of
an offense other than a felony must be commenced within
one (1) year after it is committed .
A limitations period is not a fundamental right and, indeed, at common law there was no
limitations period for criminal prosecutions . Note, "The Statute of Limitations in Criminal
Law: A Penetrable Barrier to Prosecution," 102 U. Pa . L. Rev. 630 (1954); State v.
Stowe, 829 A.2d 1036 (Md. 2003). The civil law, which did impose a criminal limitations
period, apparently influenced colonial and post-revolutionary practice, Note, supra , but
the United States Constitution does not require a limitation period on criminal offenses .
Doggett v. United States , 505 U .S . 647, 112 S. Ct. 2686, 120 L .Ed .2d 520 (1992)
(Justice Thomas, dissenting) . Similarly there is no claim in this case that the Kentucky
Constitution places time limitations on the prosecution of crimes. Rather, Kentucky's
only criminal limitations period is purely statutory and KRS 500.050(2) hews closely to
the common law by excepting only non-felony offenses .
Our case law has long recognized that, generally, a statute of limitations is a
defense, but not a jurisdictional bar, to an untimely complaint . Tomlinson v. Siehl, 459
S.W .2d 166 (Ky. 1970) ; Commonwealth Department of Highways v. Chinn , 350 S.W.2d
622 (Ky. 1961). Under CR 8 .03, of course, the statute of limitations is listed among the
affirmative defenses which may be waived if not asserted in a timely manner. Although
the Criminal Rules contain no precise analogue to CR 8.03, 1 we see no reason, at least
under the current penal code, not to recognize in the criminal sphere, via RCr 13 .04, a
like rule that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may be waived .
Indeed, since criminal defendants are permitted to waive their most fundamental
constitutional rights, it would make little sense, as many of our sister courts have noted,
to disallow the waiver of the merely statutory limitations right. State v. Timoteo , 952
P.2d 865 (Hawaii, 1997) (collecting cases).
The waiver of limitations becomes an issue in cases like this one, where the
defendant seeks a jury instruction on an expired lesser-included offense. Generally, of
RCr 8.18 does provide for a waiver of certain defenses if those defenses are
not raised before the trial.
5
course, a defendant is entitled to instructions on the whole law of the case including
lesser-included offenses whenever,
considering the totality of the evidence, the jury might have a
reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt of the greater
offense, and yet believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he
is guilty of the lesser offense.
Holland v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 792, 802 (Ky. 2003) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted) . The United States Supreme Court has held, in fact, that in
capital cases a defendant has an Eighth Amendment right to have the jury instructed
regarding any viable lesser-included offense supported by the evidence. Beck v.
Alabama , 447 U .S. 625, 100 S. Ct. 2382, 65 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1980) . In Spaziano v.
Florida , 468 U .S. 447, 104 S. Ct. 3154, 82 L. Ed . 2d 340 (1984), however, the Court
held that that right did not extend to expired lesser-included offenses unless the
defendant was willing to waive the statute of limitations defense. Spaziano sought both
a lesser-included offense instruction for an expired offense and an automatic acquittal if
the jury found him guilty of that offense . Refusing to extend Beck to those
circumstances, the Supreme Court explained that
we are unwilling to close our eyes to the social cost of
petitioner's proposed rule. Beck does not require that the
jury be tricked into believing that it has a choice of crimes for
which to find the defendant guilty, if in reality there is no
choice . Such a rule not only would undermine the public's
confidence in the criminal justice system, but it also would do
a serious disservice to the goal of rationality on which the
Beck rule is based .
If the jury is not to be tricked into thinking that there is a
range of offenses for which the defendant may be held
accountable, then the question is whether Beck requires that
a lesser included offense instruction be given, with the
defendant being forced to waive the expired statute of
limitations on those offenses, or whether the defendant
should be given a choice between having the benefit of the
lesser included offense instruction or asserting the statute of
limitations on the lesser included offenses . We think the
6
better option is that the defendant be given the choice.
Id. at 456, 3160 .
Although Beck and Spaziano are capital cases construing the Eighth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, numerous state courts have applied their reasoning to
non-capital cases and have held that a defendant is not entitled to a lesser-included
offense instruction on an expired offense unless he waives the limitations defense.
See, e.g., State v. Timoteo , supra , and State v. Boyd, 543 S.E .2d 647 (W.Va. 2000).
See generally, Tim A. Thomas, "Waivability of Bar of Limitations Against Criminal
Prosecution," 78 A.L .R. 4th 693 (1990); Annotation, "Conviction of Lesser Offense,
against which Statute of Limitations has Run, where Statute has not Run against
Offense with which Defendant is Charged," 47 A.L.R. 2nd 887 (1956). Contrary holdings
have been limited to states which, unlike Kentucky, give the jury no role in sentencing .
State v. Delisle, 648 A .2d 632 (Vt. 1994) ; State v. Muentner, 406 N .W.2d 415 (Wis.
1987). We agree with the majority of state courts and with the United States Supreme
Court that an instruction on a time-barred offense tends to deceive the jury and thus is
not permitted unless the defendant waives the limitations bar so that a verdict under the
instruction has real substance.
The next issue is how the waiver may be effected . Some courts have held that a
defendant's request for an instruction on an expired lesser-included offense, without
more, constitutes an implied waiver of the limitations defense . Timoteo , supra. Boyd ,
supra . Other courts have held, however, that waiver of the statute of limitations
"requires determination on the record that waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary,"
and does not otherwise contravene public policy. Eaddy v. State, 638 So. 2d 22, 25
(Fla. 1994). Although certainly the trial court does not err by including on the record the
defendant's express choice between his limitations right and a lesser-included
instruction, we agree with those courts that have found the request for an instruction
generally sufficient to establish waiver, absent other evidence of record that a waiver
was not intended . Not only, as the Court of Appeals emphasized, is that approach
consistent with our ruling in Reed, supra, but also it is the approach least prone to
manipulative and after-the-fact claims of error. Moreover, given that the limitations right
is statutory and not fundamental, and because in Kentucky it applies only to
misdemeanors, an informal waiver implied by conduct does not unduly threaten the
fairness of the defendant's trial.
In this case, although Stewart requested the instructions on the expired
facilitation offenses, the record makes clear that the trial court and parties alike believed
that waiver was not an option . As a result, it cannot be said that Stewart was "given the
choice," even implicitly, between asserting the limitations defense and waiving the
defense in favor of the facilitation instructions . Instead, all of the participants simply
assumed that a verdict under those instructions would result in an acquittal. This was
an error, and because it is not clear either that Stewart would have refused to waive the
limitations defense had he been given the choice or that the jury would have rejected
lesser-included offenses had instruction been given, the error cannot be deemed
harmless. Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S .W.3d 90 (Ky. 2007) .
Finally, the concurring opinion expresses alarm that by giving effect to KRS
500.050(2) we are permitting the "guilty to walk." To be sure, once a criminal limitations
period expires, even someone guilty of the expired crime will escape punishment .
Distaste for that possibility, however, does not justify the concurrence's strained reading
of the statute so as to permit implicit prosecution of and punishment for an expired
misdemeanor provided only that the misdemeanor not be explicitly charged prior to the
jury instructions . That construction not only requires one to read into the statute an
overly technical sense of "prosecution," but it also, by judicial fiat, would render virtually
meaningless the limitations protection the General Assembly has adopted . In addition
to being more appropriately addressed to the General Assembly, the concurrence's
concern is also overstated . In the vast majority of cases, defendants facing possible
felony verdicts are willing to waive their limitations defense in exchange for a
misdemeanor instruction and the possibility of a lesser verdict. Only in the relatively
rare instances where the defendant wishes to confront the jury with an all-or-nothing
choice between felony verdict and acquittal will the limitations right the General
Assembly has granted operate to preclude a misdemeanor instruction . If this is "unfair,"
as the concurrence insists, it is an unfairness the General Assembly must address .
CONCLUSION
In sum, if a criminal defendant requests a lesser-included-offense instruction on
an expired misdemeanor, the trial court should give it, provided, of course, that the
evidence supports the instruction . Absent a contrary indication in the record, the
defendant's request for such an instruction will operate as a waiver of his right to a
statute of limitations defense. Because in this case Stewart was not given the option to
waive his limitations defense in exchange for his requested facilitation instructions, we
agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals and accordingly affirm its decision
to reverse Stewart's conviction and remand the matter for a new trial.
All sitting . Lambert, CJ, Minton, Schroder, and Scott, J.J. concur. Cunningham,
J., concurs in result only by separate opinion in which Noble, J ., joins.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Jack Conway
Attorney General
William Robert Long, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Appellate Division
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Samuel N. Potter
Assistant Public Advocate
Department of Public Advocacy
100 Fair Oaks Lane
Frankfort, KY 40601
RENDERED : MAY 22, 2008
TO BE PUBLISHED
,.ruyrrure (~ourf of
mfurhV
2006-SC-000385-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NUMBER 2004-CA-001219
McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 03-CR-00100-01
V.
STEWART OLIVER
APPELLEE
OPINION BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM
CONCURRING IN RESULT ONLY
I respectfully submit that the majority's view is one-sided . In its decision today,
the majority inexplicably writes out of the statute of limitations for misdemeanors the
word "prosecution ." KRS 500.050(2) states
[E]xcept as otherwise expressly provided, the prosecution of an offense
other than a felony must be commenced within one (1) year after it is
committed . (Emphasis added .)
Up until this very hour, Appellee has yet to be prosecuted on a misdemeanor
offense . In fact, the prosecution strenuously objected to the giving of the misdemeanor
instruction .
We should hold today, as the statute dictates, that when a misdemeanor is born
of a felony prosecution and becomes a lesser-included instruction, it does not constitute
"prosecution" of the misdemeanor as intended by KRS 500.050(2) . It is simply a
residue of the felony prosecution . In other words, in the appropriate cases both the
Commonwealth and the defendant should be able to request and receive the lesserincluded instruction .
My distinguished friends on the Court today turn away from one of the most basic
truths of a criminal trial. Jury instructions are totally a judicial function . The charge to
the jury of the law of the case is not a prosecution responsibility. Nor is it subject to - as
the majority allows here - the whims and prerogative of the defense.
This Court agrees with the majority of state courts in holding that an instruction
on a time-barred offense is not permitted unless the defendant waives the statute of
limitations bar. We should not feel obliged, however, to follow decisions which are
inherently unfair, and in some instances carry hideous results. 2 We do not have to be
like birds on a wire - when one flies they all fly.
One does not need an expansive imagination to discern how this decision will
play out. Many, if not most, white collar crimes - especially embezzlement - are slow to
surface and sometime require extensive, time-consuming investigations . Even though
there may clearly be probable cause to indict a defendant for the theft of thousands of
dollars, proof at trial may become so complex and intertwined with corporate finance
that a jury is unanimous as to guilt, but totally confused on the value. Under this case, if
more than a year has passed before prosecution of the felony, the guilty walks .
This very case is a splendid example . Abusing the credit of a child, and using his
good name to defraud is a despicable crime . A different prosecutor, after hearing the
The purpose or. function of instructions is to inform the jury as to the law of the case applicable
to the facts in such a manner that the jury may not be misled[ .] 89 C.J.S. Trial ยง 485 (2001) .
2 One example will suffice . New Jersey has a five-year limitation on the prosecution of
manslaughter offenses . That state's highest court has deemed that a defendant is entitled to an
instruction on manslaughter, a lesser-included offense of murder, without telling the jury that he or she will
walk free if convicted on the lower crime because it is time-barred . State v. Short, 131 N.J. 47, 618 A.2d
316 (1993) .
2
two co-defendants point the finger at each other, might have wanted the lesser-included
misdemeanor to avoid the possibility that both defendants would go free. But wanting it
and getting it are not the same . A prosecutor's request is transformed into a judicial
function only when the court adopts the misdemeanor instruction as its own and as
representing the total law of the case.
Much attention has been given to the U .S. Supreme Court case of Spaziano v.
Florida , 468 U .S . 447, 104 S .Ct. 3154, 82 L .Ed .2d 340 (1984). In Spaziano, our
nation's highest court said that a defendant may waive being given the instruction for a
lesser-included offense, even though the defendant does not waive his statute of
limitations claim . As stated by Justice Blackmun, the issue was "whether the defendant
is entitled to the benefit of both the lesser-included offense instruction and an expired
period of limitations on those offenses ." Id . at 454 . It is clear to me that Spaziano was
written under the assumption that under Florida law the defendant would be free from
penalty for the lesser-included offense . We should hold that under Kentucky law he
would not.
The waiver requirement present in Spaziano should come into play in our trial
courts only in pre-trial matters . For instance, reducing felonies to misdemeanors for
purposes of plea bargaining is a common practice . This is fully acceptable because
implicit in the plea negotiation process is full consent and waiver on behalf of the
accused .
In Reed v. Commonwealth , 738 S.W.2d 818 (Ky. 1987), a decision relied heavily
upon by the Court of Appeals in this case, we reversed the conviction of the defendant
because an instruction on the lesser-included misdemeanor was not given, even though
the prosecution of the felony had begun more than one year after the crime had been
3
committed . Although the statute of limitations issue of KRS 500 .050(2) was not raised,
the Court held that the instruction should have been given . 738 S.W. 2d at 822-823 .
We need to deal with the real world in an even-handed way. A Commonwealth
Attorney's good faith prosecution of a felony can easily weaken in the dynamics of a
criminal trial. Witnesses may falter or fail to show; values of stolen property may grow
vague; and physical injury may look much less serious at trial than it did at the time of
the assault . The defense can introduce strong evidence not previously disclosed to the
Commonwealth, resulting in the strong possibility that the jury might opt for a lesserincluded misdemeanor offense .
Where is the fairness in allowing a defendant to waive the statute of limitations
and receive the benefit of a lesser-included instruction, while denying the
Commonwealth the option of an instruction on a misdemeanor? Where is the fairness
of invading the province of the trial court's duty to instruct on all the law, while depriving
the jury of a logical and well thought out alternative to the felony? Where is the fairness
in all of this when considering the defendant has never been prosecuted on the
misdemeanor - rather, it simply evolved as an alternative during trial? Where is the
fairness in allowing a person guilty of a serious crime - and many misdemeanors are
indeed still serious - to walk free because we here on the state's highest court choose
to ignore the plain reading of a statute?
We should leave it to the trial courts to deal with overly zealous prosecutors who
may try to bring unwarranted felony prosecutions, which would in and of themselves be
time-barred, for the purpose of camouflaging misdemeanors . Such practice is of course
condemned, but a vigorous defense bar and vigilant trial judges may amply check this
type of prosecutorial abuse. If a directed verdict is entered on behalf of the felony, it
4
would seem to be a solid basis for the trial court to also dismiss the lesser-included
offense as time-barred . In any respect, good faith would remain the cornerstone of all
criminal prosecutions .
The majority's rationale provides a one-sided emphasis and allows the defense
too much influence over the instructions to be given in a criminal case. Therefore, I
respectfully concur in result only.
Noble, J ., joins .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.