Opinion ID: 1773034
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: double jeopardy issues

Text: Jacobs argues that, because of an alleged omission in the kidnapping instruction at his first trial, the jury actually returned a verdict for Class B kidnapping which should have barred his retrial on the greater offense of capital kidnapping. On direct appeal from his original conviction, Jacobs argued that this Court should reverse his capital kidnapping conviction because of this same alleged error in the instruction. This Court did not separately address this allegation of error, but the majority opinion clearly expresses its view of its merits: Jacobs, through counsel, raises 42 assignments of alleged error in this appeal. We have reviewed all issues presented by Jacobs.... Allegations of error which we have considered to be without merit will not be herein addressed. [2] This Court found no merit to this allegation of error the first time Jacobs raised it, and we find it no more persuasive now that Appellant has recast it as a double jeopardy argument. The jury in Jacobs's original trial returned a verdict for capital kidnapping, and the Commonwealth properly sought retrial of that offense after Jacobs I . In two separate, indistinguishable arguments, Jacobs asserts that double jeopardy principles prohibit convictions for both murder and capital kidnapping because murder is a lesser included offense of capital kidnapping. We rejected this argument in St. Clair v. Roark, [3] and our views remain unchanged.