Commonwealth v. Grider
2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 321
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Grider was indicted in 2008 on six counts of Medicaid fraud for billing Medicaid for one drug while dispensing another, alleging losses of $800+.
- A circuit court discovery order required a bill of particulars and exculpatory evidence; Commonwealth claimed indictment already satisfied Rule 6.22.
- The Commonwealth escrowed and withheld Medicaid funds to Grider Drug based on investigations, creating significant financial and defense concerns.
- Brady material requests were filed; late disclosures (Complainant’s history, PRN issues, and a large FirstHealth spreadsheet) surfaced just before trial.
- After the jury was impaneled and sworn, the court contemplated (and then granted) a mistrial, and later dismissed the indictment with prejudice.
- The Commonwealth appealed; Grider moved to dismiss the appeal as moot under Double Jeopardy, which this panel ultimately treated as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to dismiss with prejudice | Commonwealth: court lacked authority to dismiss pre- trial. | Grider: dismissal appropriate and within court's power under due process standards. | Yes; circuit court had authority to dismiss with prejudice. |
| Brady/Discovery and prejudice | Commonwealth: Brady issues did not justify dismissal; disclosures were adequate. | Grider: late and incomplete disclosures violated Brady and impaired defense. | Brady alone did not mandate dismissal, but prejudice from discovery failures supported dismissal. |
| Pre-authorization defect in indictment | Commonwealth: indictment framed charges around general fraud; pre-authorization issue not essential. | Grider: pre-authorization violation was central; failure to charge it prejudiced defense. | Indictment defect prejudiced substantial rights and supported dismissal. |
| Double Jeopardy retrial bar | Commonwealth: retrial not barred because dismissal occurred after mistrial onset by court, not by defendant. | Grider: retrial barred due to double jeopardy since jeopardy attached and dismissal prejudiced. | Retrial was barred; dismissal with prejudice precludes retrial. |
| Amended charging documents and safeguards | Commonwealth: no required amendments were warranted; bill of particulars satisfied the charges. | Grider: amendment or clear charging of pre-authorization was necessary to protect defense. | Indictment amendment would have been improper; failure to charge pre-authorization violated due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 686 (Ky. 2009) (separation of powers; trial judge may dismiss pre-trial only with consent or on narrow grounds)
- Cardine v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 641 (Ky.2009) (jeopardy attaches at impaneling; mistrial affects retrial rights)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (mistrial and double jeopardy principle; bad faith standard for retrial)
- Stamps v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 868 (Ky.1983) (double jeopardy considerations in dismissal decisions)
- Scott v. Commonwealth, 12 S.W.3d 682 (Ky.2000) (double jeopardy framework and retrial limits)
- Derry v. Commonwealth, 274 S.W.3d 439 (Ky.2008) (mistrial and termination standards)
- Bowling v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 405 (Ky.2002) (Brady applies to new exculpatory information disclosed before trial)
- Baker v. Commonwealth, 11 S.W.3d 585 (Ky.App.2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissal decisions)