THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

  VOLUME 14 - CHAPTER 297
Go to Volume 14 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 297 Table of Contents

297.6 Inconsistent Verdicts

    297.6.1 Challenging Inconsistent Verdicts On Appeal

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

  VOLUME 14 - CHAPTER 297

APPELLATE PRACTICE NOTE: Appellate cases which have considered the question of inconsistent verdicts have generally upheld such verdicts (1) as the result of leniency; or (2) as not actually inconsistent. (See Dunn v. U.S. (1932) 284 US 290 [consistency in the verdict is not necessarily and the appellate court may not speculate on whether an inconsistency resulted from compromise or mistake on the jury’s part]; People v. Federico (CA 1981) 127 CA3d 20, 32-33 [179 CR 315]; People v. Calpito (CA 1970) 9 CA3d 212, 219 [88 CR 64].)  However, in Marsh v. State (IN 1979) 393 NE2d 757, 761, the Indiana Supreme Court said that although it had never reversed a case on the basis of inconsistent verdicts, "the better, and de facto rule is not a narrow interpretation of [Dunn]....While perfectly logical verdicts should not be demanded, extremely contradictory and irreconcilable verdicts weren’t corrective action...."

    However, inconsistent verdicts may be improper if the verdicts establish that no leniency was granted to the accused. (See e.g., People v. O'Connor (CA 1992) 8 CA4th 941, 948 [10 CR2d 530]; see also People v. Atkins (CO 1992) 844 P2d 1196, 1200 [conviction for murder requiring intent to kill particular individual, and extreme indifference murder, requiring manifestation of extreme indifference to human life, were inconsistent]; State v. Hinton (CT 1993) 630 A2d 593, 599 [guilty verdicts of attempted murder and assault in first degree of same victim were inconsistent]; People v. Mitchell (IL 1992) 605 NE2d 1055, 1058 [attempted murder and reckless conduct convictions were inconsistent]; Owsley v. State (IN 2002) 769 NE2d 181 [verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent where the evidence underlying both charges was the same and the jury convicted the defendant of one charge and acquitted of the other]; State v. Villar (NJ 1997) 696 A2d 674, 681 [reversible inconsistency may result where verdict acquitting accused on one count tends to negate an essential element of the other count].)

    Additionally, even though inconsistent verdicts are not barred under federal constitutional principles of collateral estoppel (U.S. v Powell (1984) 469 US 57, 64-68 [105 SCt 471; 83 LEd2d 461]), the unreliability of inconsistent verdicts may implicate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment in capital cases. (See e.g, People v. Klingenberg (IL 1996) 665 NE2d 1370, 1373 [distinguishing Powell and holding that legally inconsistent verdicts are unreliable].)

    For example, if multiple victims are simultaneously injured and the jury convicts the defendant of offenses requiring inconsistent mental states the requirement of unanimity may be violated. (See Cooper, KENTUCKY INSTRUCTIONS TO JURIES 1.56 [Unanimous Verdict] p. 55 (Anderson, 4th ed. 2001); see also Pace v. Commonwealth (KY 1982) 636 SW2d 887, 890.)  However, if the defendant injured each victim separately by independent acts inconsistent verdicts may not be deficient.  (Cooper at pp. 55-56.)

    Collateral estoppel may also preclude liability for inconsistent verdicts where the accused's guilt is predicated upon his vicarious liability for the acts of an acquitted confederate. (See NCJIC 64.3.4 [Propriety Of Accomplice Liability When Perpetrator Acquitted]; see also NCJIC 83.3.3.5 [Conspiracy: Requirement Of More Than One Conspirator -- "The Plurality Requirement" (Collateral Estoppel)].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

Annotation, Inconsistency Of Criminal Verdict As Between Different Counts Of Indictment Or Information, 18 ALR3d 259.

See also generally, NCJIC 305.1.12 [Appeal].

See also generally, NCJIC 305.9.2 [Inconsistent Verdicts].