Opinion ID: 1451577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: prohibition as an appropriate remedy.

Text: The Commonwealth asserts that a writ of prohibition is an inappropriate remedy in this case, because St. Clair has an adequate remedy by appeal. St. Clair relies on Crawley v. Kunzman, Ky., 585 S.W.2d 387 (1979), in which we held that the right of appeal is never an adequate remedy against a claim of double jeopardy. In Jones v. Hogg, Ky., 639 S.W.2d 543 (1982), Crawley was limited to its facts, i.e., the petitioner was trying to prevent a retrial after a previous acquittal of the same charge. In Jones , the petitioner had never been acquitted, but was trying to prevent a retrial after three mistrials caused by deadlocked juries. The Commonwealth relies on Haight v. Williamson, Ky., 833 S.W.2d 821 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 925, 113 S.Ct. 1296, 122 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993), in which we held that the issue as to whether being subjected to a possible death penalty upon retrial after reversal of a previous conviction and death sentence amounted to double jeopardy was answerable upon appeal, thus not the proper subject of a petition for a writ of prohibition. Id. at 824. [1] However, Haight and Jones v. Hogg, supra , both reiterated the oft-repeated maxim that although a writ of prohibition will issue only in exceptional circumstances, whether to do so lies within the sound discretion of the court in which the writ is sought. Haight, 833 S.W.2d at 823; Jones, 639 S.W.2d at 543. In fact, despite limiting the holding in Crawley v. Kunzman and concluding that the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal, the Court in Jones proceeded to address and resolve the merits of the double jeopardy issue raised in that petition. Reading Crawley , Jones and Haight together, we conclude that although double jeopardy is an appropriate subject for a writ of prohibition, it is not mandatory that it be addressed in that context. The court in which the petition is filed may, in its discretion, address the merits of the issue within the context of the petition for the writ, or may decline to do so on grounds that there is an adequate remedy by appeal. Neither approach is mandatory and the exercise of discretion may well depend on the significance of the issue as framed by the facts of the particular case. Because of the importance of the issue raised by St. Clair, and because the issue is well framed by the facts of this case, the majority of this Court deems it appropriate to address the issue now rather than delay resolution until a possible appeal.