In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ju n e 2 9, 2 0 1 5

S 1 4 G1 5 3 9 . THE S TATE v . S P RINGER.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

We g ra n te d th e S ta te ’s p e titio n fo r writ o f c e rtio ra ri to re v ie w th e Co urt

o f A p pe a ls’ d e c isio n re v e rsin g a p p e lle e R o de ric k S p rin g e r’s c o n v ic tio n s fo r

a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt a n d in v o lu n ta ry m an sla u g h te r b a se d o n re c k le ss c o n d u c t o n

th e gro u nd th a t th e se v e rd ic ts a re m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

. S e e S p rin g e r v

. Sta te 3 2 8

Ga

. Ap p

. 6 5 4 (7 6 2 S E2 d 43 3 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Afte r re v ie win g th e re c o rd a n d p e rtin e n t

c a se la w , we h o ld th a t u n d e r th e fa c ts o f th is c a se , th e ju ry ’s gu ilty v e rd ic ts a re

n o t m utu a lly e x c lu siv e a n d re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t of th e Co u r t o f Ap p e a ls. In

d o in g so , we o v e rru le o u r d e c isio n in Ja c k so n v

. S ta te

, 27 6 Ga

. 4 0 8 (5 7 7 S E2 d

5 7 0 ) (2 00 3 ).

Th e S ta te p re se nte d e v id e n c e a t tria l d e m o n stra tin g th a t Sp rin g e r a n d a c o

d e fe n d a n t e x c h a

n g e d m u ltip le g u n sh o ts in a p u b lic pa rk in g lo t, se v e ra l o f wh ic h

stru c k th e v ic tim , a

n in n o c e n t b y sta n d e r, c a

u sin g th e v ic tim ’s d e a th . S p rin g e rwa s in d ic te d on c h a rg e s o f f el o n y m u rd e r, a g gra va te d a ssa u lt, a nd p o sse ssio n

o f a f i r e a r m d u rin g th e c o m m issio n o f a c rim e

. At S p rin g e r’s re qu e st, in

a d d itio n to in stru c tin g th e ju ry o n th e o ffe n se s se t o u t in th e in dic tm e n t, th e tria l

c o u rt a lso c h a r g e d th e ju ry o n th e le sse r-in c lu d e d offe nse o f in v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r p re d ic a te d on th e m isd e m e a no rs of re c k le ss c o n d u c t a n d sim p le

a ssa u lt. S e e OCGA § 1 6-5 -3 (a ) (in v olu n ta ry m an sla u g h t e r u n la wfu l a c t);

OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (sim

p le a ssa u lt); OCGA § 16 -5 -6 0 (b ) (re c kle ss c on du c t). Th e

ju ry u ltim a te ly fo un d S p rin ge r g u ilty o f in v o l u n t a r y m a n slaug h te r b a se d o n

re c k le ss c o n d u c t, a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt, a n d po sse ssio n o f a fire a rm d u rin g th e

c o m m issio n o f a c rim e

. He w a s se n te n c e d to c o nc u rre n t te rm s o f 10 a n d 2 0

y e a r s im p riso n m e n t fo r in v o lu n ta ry m a n sla ug h te r a n d a g g ra va te d a ssa u l t

,

re sp e c tiv e ly , a

n d a c o n se c u tiv e fiv e -y e a r te rm o f im p riso n m e nt o n th e fire a rm

c o u n t.

S p rin g e r a

p p e a le d to th e Co u rt o f A p p e a ls, a rg u in g , in p a rt, th a t h is

in v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a n d a g g ra v a te d a ssa ult c o n v ic tio n s we re p ro h ib ite d

u n d e r Ja c kso n, su p ra , a c a se in wh ic h a m a jo rity o f th is Co u rt he ld th a t

c o n v ic tio n s fo r fe lo n y m

u rd e r p re d ic a te d o n a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt an d in v o lu n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r b a se d on re c k le ss c on d u c t a re m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e a n d

, th e re fo re ,

2m

u st b e re v e rse d

, “ b e c a

u se th e y re p re se n t a p o sitiv e bu t illo g ic a l fin d in g b y th e

ju ry th a t [th e d e fe nd a n t] a c te d with b o th c rim in a l in te n t a n d c rim in a l

n e g lig e n c e .” Ja c kso n, su p ra , 2 7 6 G a

. a t 4 1 1

. Re ly in g o n Ja c kso n , th e Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls v a c a te d Sp rin g e r’s in v o lu n ta ry m a n slau g h te r an d a g gra v a te d a ssa u lt

c o n v ic tio n s, fin d in g th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic ts a re m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e b e c a

u se th e re wa s

a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t th e ju ry c o n c lu d e d th a t S p ri n g e r a c te d b o th with

a n d w ith o u t a n in te n t to h a rm th e v ic tim wh e n h e d i s c h ar g ed h is g u n in th e

p a rk in g lo t. S e e S p rin g e r, su p ra , 3 2 8 Ga . Ap p . a t 6 5 7

.

1 . Th e S ta te u rg e s u s to re c on sid e r o u r h o ld in g in Ja c k so n , arg u in g th a t

v e rd ic ts o f g u ilt fo r th e g re a te r o ffe n se o f a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt a n d t h e le sse r

in c lu de d o ffe n se o f re c k le ss c o n du c t a re n o t m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

. It p o i n ts o u t

th a t u n d e r Ge o rg ia la w, in v o lu n ta ry m a n sla u g h te r a n d re c k le ss c o n d uc t a re b o th

le sse r in c lu d e d o ffe n se s o f fe lo n y m u rd e r, a nd re c k le ss c o n d u c t is a lso a le sse r

in c lu de d o ffe n se o f a g g ra va te d a ssa u lt b y a tte m p tin g to in

ju re

. S e e Re in h a rd t

v

. S ta te

, 2 63 Ga . 1 1 3 , 1 1 3 -1 1 4 (2 ) (4 2 8 S E2 d 3 3 3 ) (1 9 9 3), o v e rru le d o n o th e r

g ro u n d s, Ve rg a ra v

. S ta te

, 28 3 Ga . 1 7 5 , 1 7 7 ) (6 57 S E2 d 8 6 3 ) (2 0 0 8 ); S h a w v

.

S ta te

, 2 3 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 7 5 7

, 75 8 -7 5 9 (5 1 9 S E2 d 4 8 6 ) ( 1 9 9 9 ). S e e a lso OCGA §

1 6 -1 -6 (d e fin in g in c lu d e d c rim e ). It a rg ue s, th e re fo re , th a t b e c a u se th e o ffe nse

3o f re c k le ss c o n d u c t is in c lu d e d in th e c h arg e d c rim e o f fe lo n y m u rd e r b a se d o n

a g g ra v a te d a s sa u lt, it is illo g ic a l to c o nc lu d e th a t a c o nv ic tio n fo r th e le sse r

o ffe n se a n d a c o n v ic tio n o f th e g re a te r offe n se a re m utu a lly e x c lu siv e

. S p rin g e r

ta k e s th e p o sitio n th a t Ja c k so n wa s n o t wro ng ly de c id e d b u t a sk s th is Co u rt to

h o l d t h a t a d e fe n d a n t h a s th e d isc re tio n to a c c e p t m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e v e rd ic t s

wh e n it is in h is o r h e r in te re st to d o so

.

As a g e ne ra l ru le

, a gu ilty v e rd ic t c a nn ot b e c h a lle n g e d o n th e g ro u n d th a t

th e ju ry ’s ve rd ic t o f g u ilt on o n e c o u nt o f a n in d ic tm e n t is in c o n siste n t with a n

a c q u itta l o n a n o th e r c o u n t. S e e Un ite d S ta te s v

. P o w e l l

, 4 6 9 U.S

. 57

, 6 8 -6 9

(1 0 5 S C t 4 7 1

, 8 3 LE2 d 4 6 1) (1 9 8 4 ); Du m a s v

. Sta te

, 2 6 6 Ga

. 7 9 7

, 7 9 9 (4 7 1

S E2 d 5 0 8 ) (1 9 9 6 ). S uc h v e rd ic ts a re d e e m e d c o n stitu tio n a lly to le ra ble b e c a use

th e y m ay re fle c t a

n e x e rc ise o f le n ity b y th e ju ry th a t is n ot n e c e ssa rily g ro u n d e d

in its v ie w o f th e e v id e n c e . S e e Du n n v . Un ite d S ta te s, 2 84 U.S

. 3 9 0 , 3 9 3 (5 2

S Ct 1 8 9

, 7 6 L E 3 5 6 ) (1 9 3 2 ), q u o tin g Ste c k le r v

. Un ite d S ta te s, 7 F 2d 5 9, 6 0 (2 d

Cir. 1 9 2 5) (“ Th e m o st th a t c a n b e sa id in su c h c a se s i s t h at t h e v e rd ic t sh o w s

th a t e ith e r in th e a c q u itta l o r th e c o n vic tio n t h e ju ry d id n o t sp e a k th e ir re a l

c o n c lu sio n s, b ut th a t d o e s n o t sh o w th a t th e y we re n o t c o n v i n c e d o f th e

d e fe n d a n t’s g u ilt. We in te rp re t th e a c qu itta l a s n o m ore th a n th e ir a ssu m p tio n

4o f a p o we r wh ic h th e y ha d n o rig h t to e x e rc ise

, bu t to wh ic h th e y we re d isp o se d

th ro u g h le n ity ” ); Du m a s, su pra , 2 6 6 Ga

. a t 7 99 (2 ) (a b o litio n of in c on si ste n t

v e rd ic t ru le is c o n s i s t e n t “ with th e p rin c ip le th a t it is n o t ge n e ra lly with in th e

tria l c o u rt’s p o we r to m a k e in q u irie s in to th e ju ry ’s d e lib e ra tio ns, o r to sp e c u la te

a b o u t th e r e as o n s fo r a n y in c o n siste n c y b e twe e n gu ilty a n d n o t g u ilty

v e rd ic ts.” ).

In P o we ll, su p ra , 4 6 9 U.S

. a t 6 9 n .8

, th e S u pre m e Co u rt no te d th a t n o th in g

in th a t o p in io n wa s “ in te n d e d to d e ci d e th e p ro p e r re so lu tio n of a situ a tio n

wh e re a d e fe n d a n t is c o n v ic te d o f two c rim e s, wh e re a g u ilty v e rd ic t o n o n e

c o u n t lo g ic a lly e xc lu de s a fin d in g o f g u ilt on th e o th e r.” Th is Co u rt a d d re sse d

th e issu e le ft u n d e c id e d in P o w e ll in Du m a s, su p ra , 2 6 6 Ga

. a t 8 0 0

. In th a t c a se ,

th e ju ry in itia lly fo u n d t h e d e f e n d a nt g u ilty o f m a lic e m u rd e r, v e h ic u la r

h o m ic id e , a n d d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e

. Th e tria l c o u rt in fo rm e d th e ju ry it

h a d re nd e re d in c o n siste n t v e rd ic ts a n d se n t ju ro rs b a c k fo r fu rth e r d e lib e ra tio n s.

Th e ju ry la te r re tu rn e d ve rd ic ts f i n d in g Du m a s g u ilty o f m a lic e m u rd e r a n d

d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e nc e . Ona p p e a l, Du m a s a rg u e d th a t th e tria l c o u rt wa s

o b lig a te d to a c c e p t th e ju ry ’s first v e rd ic ts, a n d b e c a use th e e sse ntia l e le m e n ts

o f m a lic e m

urd e r a n d v e h ic u la r h o m ic id e c o u ld n o t be re c o n c ile d

, th e tria l c o urt

5wa s o n ly a

u th o riz e d to c on v ic t him o f th e le sse r o ffe n se of v e hic u la r ho m ic id e

.

Id

. a t 7 98

. We a f

f i r m e d, a g re e in g b o th th a t v e rd ic ts a re m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

wh e re is it “ le g a lly a n d lo g ic a lly im p o ssib le to c o n v ic t [th e a c c u se d] o f b o th

c o u n ts,” a n d th a t th e first v e rd ic ts c o uld n o t b e a c c e p te d b e c a u se th e g u ilty

v e rd ic ts fo r ma l i c e m

u rd e r, a n o ffe nse re q u irin g a sh o win g of m a lic e , a n d

v e h ic u la r h o m ic id e , re q u irin g a sh o win g o f th e a b se n c e o f m a lic e a fo re th o u g h t

a n d in te n t, we re m

u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

. Id

. a t 8 0 0

. W e al s o h e ld th a t wh e re

v e rd ic ts a re m

u tu a lly e x c lu siv e , re v e rsa l o f b o th v e rd ic ts is re q u ire d b e c a u se it

wo u ld b e “ in su ffic ie n t fo r a n a p p e lla te c o u rt m e re ly to se t a sid e th e le sse r

v e rd ic t, be c a

u se to d o so is to sp e c u la te a b o u t wh a t th e ju ry m ig h t h a ve d o n e if

p ro p e rly in stru c te d, a n d to u su rp th e fu nc tio n s o f b o th th e ju ry a n d tria l c o u rt.” 1

Id

. Th u s, we d e te rm in e d in Du m a s th a t a t le a st un d e r sta te la w, two o r m o re

1 This Court has recognized that verdicts are not m utually e xclusive and reversal is

not required “where the of f enses underly ing the convictions can be reconciled by looking to

e i t h er the legal r equirem e nts f or each underly ing of

f ense or to the u nique f

acts adduced at
trial.” Jackson, 276 G a. at 4 1 1. W e, theref ore, have upheld convictions where we could

d e t e r mi n e f

rom the verdicts as to all charges that the jury d id not base its involunt a r y

m anslaughter verdict on crim inal negligence, see Drake v

. State, 288 Ga. 131, 133-135 (702

S E 2 d 161) (2010), where the record showed t he def endant’s convictions were based o n dif f erent acts, see Mills v. S t a te, 280 Ga. 232, 234 (626 SE2d 495) (2006), and w here we could determ ine f

rom t he record t hat t he verdicts were based on crim es com m itted against

two dif f erent victim s , see Sanchez v. State, 285 Ga. 749, 751 (684 SE2d 251) (2009).

6le g a lly a n d lo g ic a lly irre c on c ila b le g u ilty v e rd ic ts c a n n o t sta n d

. 2 S e e a lso

Ma so n e r v

. Th u rm a n , 9 9 6 F 2 d 1 0 0 3

, 1 0 0 5 (9 th Cir. 19 9 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t P o w e ll

is n o t a p p lic a

b le wh e re ju ry c o nv ic ts d e fe n d a n t o f m u ltip le c h a rg e s th a t a re

l o g i c a lly in c o n siste n t); Un ite d Sta te s v

. Gro ss, 9 61 F 2d 1 0 9 7

, 1 10 6 (3 d C i r

.

1 9 9 2) (lo g ic a lly in c o m

p a tib le g u ilty v e rd ic ts c an n o t sta n d ).

S e v e n y e a rs la te r, in Ja c k so n , th is Co u rt wa s c a lle d u p o n to c o n sid e r fo r

th e first tim e wh e th e r c o n v ic tio n s fo r fe lo n y m urd e r p re d ic a te d up o n a g g ra v a te d

a ssa u lt a n d in v o lu n ta ry m a nsla ug hte r p re d ic a te d u p o n re c k le ss c o n d u c t a re

m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

. Ou r in q u iry re q u ire d us to c a re fu lly sc ru tin iz e th e o ffe n se s

a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t a s u n d e rly in g th e c h arg e s a n d d e te rm in e wh e th e r th e

ju ry , in fin d in g th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty o f b o th c o u n ts, “ n e c e ssa rily re a c h e d two

p o sitiv e fin d in g s o f fa c t th a t c a n n o t lo g ic a lly m u tu a lly e x ist.” Ja c k so n , su pra ,

2 7 6 G a

. a t 4 1 0 (p u n c tu a tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). In d o in g so , we re c o g n iz e d

th a t fe lo n y m

u rd e r re q u ire s a d e fe n d a n t to p o sse ss th e c rim in a l in te nt to c o m m it

th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y a n d th a t wh e re th e fe lo n y m u rd e r c h a rg e d is b a se d o n a n

2 Because o f this h o lding, w e reject Springer’s suggestion that def endants should be

allowed to accept m

u tually exclusive verdicts d espite the inherent error. For the sam e reason, we reject the State’s i nvitation to treat challenges to m utually exclusive verdicts m erely as challenges to the suf

f iciency of the evidence.

7a ssa u lt, in th a t c a se a g g ra va te d to fe lo n y sta tu s b y u se o f a d e a d ly we a p o n , th e re

a re two wa y s to c o m m it th e a ssa u lt: (1 ) b y a tte m p tin g to “ c o mmi t a v io le n t

in ju ry to th e p e rso n o f a

n o th e r,” OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a ) (1 ), o r (2 ) b y c o m m ittin g

“ a n a c t wh ic h p la c e s a no th e r in re a so n a b le a p p re h e n sio n o f imm e d ia te ly

re c e iv in g a v io le n t in

ju ry .” OCGA § 1 6-5 -2 0 (a ) (2 ). C itin g Du n a g an v

. S ta te

,

2 6 9 Ga

. 5 9 0 (5 0 2 S E2 d 72 6 ) (1 9 9 8), we fu rth e r a c k n o wle d g e d th a t a n

a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt with a d e a d ly we a p o n ba se d o n a n a ssa u lt u nd e r OCGA § 1 6

-

5 -2 0 (a ) (1 ) c a n n o t b e c om m itte d b y c rim in a l n e g lig e nc e

. Ja c k so n , su pra , 2 7 6

Ga

. a t 41 1

. Re c k le ss c on d u c t, in c o n t r a s t

, is “ ‘a n a c t o f c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e ,

ra th e r th a n a n in te n tio n a l a c t, th a t c a u se s b od ily ha rm o r e n d a n g e rs th e b o d ily

sa fe ty of a no th e r.’” Id

. (c ita tio n o m itte d). Giv e n th e d iffe re nt e le m e n ts o f th e se

two offe n se s a

n d ou r h o ld in g in D u n a g a n th a t a v e rd ic t o f g u ilty a s to

a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt b a se d o n OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a ) (1 ) re q uire s a fin d in g o f in te n t,

we h e ld th a t th e e le m e nt o f in te nt re q u ire d to p ro v e a n a ssa u lt u n d e r su b se c tio n

(a ) (1 ) “ p re c lu d e s th e e le m e n t o f c rim in a l ne g lig e n c e in re c k le ss c o n d u c t” a n d

th e “two o ffe nse s c a n n o t lo g ic a lly a n d le g a lly c o -e x ist.” Ja c k so n , su p ra , 2 7 6

Ga . a t 4 1 2 (e m

p h a sis in orig in a l).

A c a re fu l re v ie w of Du n a g a n re ve a ls th e e rro r in th is a n a ly sis. Du n a g a n

8in v o lv e d a c h a lle n g e to a ju ry c h a rg e in stru c tin g th a t c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e c o u ld

su b stitu te fo r c rim in a l in te n t a n d su p p o rt a g u ilty v e rd ic t fo r th e offe n se o f

a ssa u lt u n d e r OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a ) (1 ). Re c o g n iz in g th e two w a y s in w h ic h to

c o m m it a n a ssa u lt, we sta te d th a t fo r an a lle g e d a ssa ult u n d e r su b se c tio n (a ) (1 ),

“ th e a tte m

pte d o r c o m

p le te d in ju ry to th e v ic tim is th e in te n de d c o n se q ue n c e o f

th e d e fe n d a n t’s a c t,” b u t if th e th re a te n e d o r c o m p le te d in ju ry re su lts fro m

th e

d e fe n d a n t’s c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e , a le ss c u lp a ble m e n ta l sta te

, it c o n stitu te s th e

c rim e o f re c k le ss c o n d u c t u n d e r O CGA § 1 6 -5 -6 0

. D u n a g an , su p ra , 2 69 Ga

. a t

5 9 2

. A c c o rd in g ly

, we h e ld th a t “ c rim in a l in te n t a n d c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e a re n o t

in te rc ha n g e a b le in th o se in sta n c e s wh e re th e m e nta l c u lp a b ility o f th e a c to r is

th e e sse ntia l e le m e n t th a t d istin g u ish e s two se p a ra te c rime s , w i t h se p a ra te

p e n a ltie s, fo r c o m m ittin g th e s a m e b e ha v io r.” Id

. (e m p h a sis in orig in a l). T o

h a v e h e ld oth e rwise wo u ld h a v e a u th o riz e d th e ju ry to c o n v ic t th e d e fe n d a n t o f

a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt p re dic a te d o n a n a ssa u lt u n d e r OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 0 (a ) (1 ) b a se d

o n th e le sse r m e n s re a

o f c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e

.

Du n a ga n , wh ic h sim

p ly h o ld s th at t

h e le sse r m e n ta l c u lp a

b ility o f c rim in a l

n e g lig e n c e is n o t in te rc ha ng e ab le with th e g re a te r in te n tio n a l m e n ta l c u lp a b ility

to su pp o rt a c o n v ic tio n u n d e r su b se c tio n (a ) (1 ), wa s m ista k e n ly c ite d in Ja c k so n

9fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a fin d in g o f a n in te n tio na l in flic tio n o f in ju ry p re c lu de s

th e e le m e n t o f c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e in re c k le ss c o n d u c t an d

, th e re fo re ,

c o n v ic tio n s fo r b o th (a ) (1 ) a ssa u lt a nd re c k le ss c o n d u c t b a se d o n th e sa m e a c t

a g a in st th e sa m e v ic tim a re m u tu a lly e xc lu siv e

. Th a t wa s n o t o u r h o ld in g in

Du n a g a n

. R e a d p r o p e rly

, Du n a g a n sta n d s o n ly fo r th e we ll-e sta b lish e d

p ro p o sitio n th a t p ro o f o f c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e c a n n o t su b stitu te fo r c rim in a l

in t e n t fo r th o se o ffe n se s wh e re th e o n ly d iffe re nc e b e twe e n th e o ffe n se s is a

g re a te r o r le sse r m e n ta l c u lp a b ility . S e e Du n a g a n, su p ra , 2 6 9 Ga . a t 5 9 2

.

Vie win g Du n a ga n in its p ro p e r c o n te x t le a d s u s to c o n c l u de th a t th e

p o sitio n ta k e n b y

Ju stic e Ca rle y in h is Ja c k so n d isse n t wa s c orre c t a n d sh o u ld

h a v e be e n fo llo we d

. Ju s t i c e Ca rle y a rg ue d th a t be c a u se re c k le ss c o nd u c t is a

le sse r in c lu d e d c rim e in a n a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt, r e q u irin g o n ly a “ le ss c u lp a b le

me n ta l sta te ” o r “ le sse r k in d o f c u lp a b ility ,” se e OCGA § 1 6 -1 -6 (1 ) a n d ( 2 )

,

v e rd ic ts fin d in g a de fe n d a n t g u ilty o f b o th offe n se s a re n o t m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

.

S e e Ja c k so n , su p ra , 2 7 6 Ga . a t 4 1 7 (Ca rle y , J., d isse n tin g ). As h e sta te d

,

[t] h e re is n o th in g le g a lly in c o m p a tib le o r le g a lly in c o n si s t e n t
b e t w e e n th e m e n s re a o f a re c k le ss d isre g ard fo r life -th re a te n in g

c o n se q u e n c e s a n d th e m e n s re a o f a sp e c ific in te n t to in flic t h a rm

. Th e la tte r is m o re b la m e wo rth y th a n th e fo rm e r, b u t it is n o t le g a lly

in c o n siste nt with th e fo rm e r. To be su re , a sp e c ific in te n t to e ffe c t

10a d e sire d c on se qu e n c e , o n th e on e h an d

, a n d a c o n sc io u s d isre ga rd

o f o r c a llo u s in d iffe re nc e to th e c o n se q ue n c e , o n th e o th e r h a n d

, a re

m e n ta l sta te s th a t a re d istin c t a n d a p p a re n tly c o n tra d ic to ry in b o th

a lin g u istic a

n d p sy c h o lo g ic a l se n se

. Th e y a re no t, ho w e v e r, in c o m p a tib le o r in c o n siste n t in a le g a l se n se

.

Id

., q u o tin g Willia m s v

. S t a t e , 6 4 1 A2 d 9 9 0

, 9 9 4 (Md

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 4 ). S e e a lso

Bu e h l v

. V a u g h n , 1 6 6 F 3 d 1 6 3, 1 8 0 (II) (H) (3 d Cir. 1 9 9 9 ) (fin d in g th a t

d e fe n d a n t in te n tio n a lly k ille d th e v ic tim is le g a lly c o n siste nt with fin din g th a t

h e c a use d th e v ic tim ’s d e a th t h r o u g h r e c k le ssn e ss). In su c h c a se s, a n d

e sp e c ia lly wh e re th e le sse r in c lu de d c rim e do e s n o t re q u ire p ro o f o f th e a b se n c e

o f a g re a te r m e n s re a , th e g re a te r p ro o f o f a d e fe n d a n t’s in te n t “ d o e s n o t n e g a te

o r c o n tra d ic t th e le sse r p ro o f b u t on ly su b su m e s it.” Willia m s, su p ra , 6 4 1 A2 d

a t 99 4

. S e e a lso Bu e h l, su p ra , 1 66 F 3 d a t 1 7 9 (re c k le ssn e ss e le m e nt sa tisfie d b y

p ro o f o f g re a te r m e ns re a ).

Th e a bse nc e of le ga l a n d l o g ic a l in c o m p a tib ility in th e d u a l fin d in g s o f

in te nt to in flic t in

ju ry a n d c rim in a l n e g lig e nc e t o s u p p o rt a c on vic tio n fo r

re c k le ss c o n du c t is fu rth e r e v id e n t u p o n e xa m in a tio n o f th e m e n ta l re q u ire m e n ts

fo r e a c h o ffe n se

. Th e in te n t to c a u se h a rm re q uire d u n d e r su b se c tio n (a ) (1 )

re fe rs n o t o n ly t o t h e r eq u isite m e n s re a o f in te n t b u t a lso to a d e fe n d a n t’s

d e lib e ra te p u rp o se to a c c o m p lish an in

ju rio u s re su lt. In c o ntra st, th e m e n s re a

11o f c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e is u n c o n c e rn e d with th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f a d e fe n d a n t’s

a c t b u t de fin e s a m e n ta l sta te wh e re an in d iv id u a l, c o n sc io us o f th e su b sta n tia l

a n d u n ju stifia b le risk in v o lv e d

, n e v e rth e le ss d isre g a rd s th a t risk

. S e e S ta te v

.

Co le

, 5 4 2 NW2 d 4 3

, 5 1 -5 2 (Min n

. 1 9 96 ) (h o ld in g re c k le s s n e ss an d in te n t a re

n o t m u tu a lly e x c lu s i v e b e c a

u se th e re c k le ss a c to r “c o nsc io u sly d isre g a rd s a

su b sta n tia l a n d u n

ju stifia b le risk th a t th e e le m e n t o f a n o ffe n se e x i s t s o r will

re su lt fro m h is c o n d u c t” a n d th e in te n tio n a l a c to r “ e ith e r h a s a p u rp o se to d o th e

th in g sp e c ifie d o r b e lie v e s th a t th e a c t p e rfo rm e d will c a u se th a t re su lt” ).

Up h o ld in g Ja c kso n wo u ld re q u ire u s to c o n c lu d e th a t a ju ry ’s fin d in g o f

a g re a te r m e n s re a is le g a lly a n d lo g ic a lly irre c o n c ilab le with a fin d in g o f g u ilt

o n a le sse r in c lu d e d c rim e o r, sta te d o th e rwise

, th a t p ro o f of a g re a te r m e n s re a

c a n n o t b e u se d a s p ro o f to e sta b lish a le sse r m e n s r e a

. T h i s p ro p o sitio n , lik e

m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e ve rd ic ts, is n e ith e r lo g ic a l ly n o r le ga lly su sta in a b le

. Ev e n

a ssu m in g th a t a ju ry fin d s a d e fe n d a n t g uilty o f an a ssa ult u nd e r OCGA § 1 6 -5

-

2 0 (a ) (1 ), p ro o f o f c o m m issio n o f t h e l e s se r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f re c k le ss

c o n d u c t m a y be e sta b lish e d b y p ro of of th e gre a te r o ffe n se o f a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt

p re d ic a te d o n su b se c tio n (a ) (1 ), th e e sse n tia l d istin c tio n b e twe e n th e se c rim e s

b e in g th e le v e l o f m e n ta l c ulp a b ility

. S u c h d istin c tio n do e s n o t m e a n th a t

12fin d in g s o f g u ilt a s to b oth o ffe n se s a re irre c on c ilab le o r th a t if th e S ta te p ro ve s

th e g re a te r m e n s re a , a ju ry wo u ld n o t b e a u th o riz e d to c o n v ic t o f th e l e s s e r

in c lu de d c rim e b a se d o n th e fin d in g o f th e g re a te r. On e c an n o t a n d sh o u ld n o t

b e a llo we d to d e fe n d a g a in st a le sse r in c lu d e d c h a rg e b y p ro v in g th a t h e is m o re

c u lp a b le

. S e e Willia m s, su p ra , 6 4 1 A2 d a t 9 93 (“ It is no t a d e fe n se to p ro v e

th a t o ne is m o re c u lp a

b le th a n c h a rg e d .” ). Ac c or d in g ly

, we c o n c lu d e th a t

m u ltip le g uilty v e rd ic ts fo r th e sa m e c o n d u c t th a t a re ba se d o n v a ry in g le v e ls o f

m e n s re a a re n o t m

u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

. 3

3 In com parison to t he v e r d i c t s i n t his case involving dif f erent levels of m ental culpability and lesser included of f enses are cases where a jury returns v erdicts convicting a def endant of two or m ore crim e s and the existence of an elem ent of one of the crim es negates
the existence o f a necessary e lem ent of another crim e. S ee, e.g., Thom a s v. S tate, 261 Ga. 854, 855 (1) (413 SE2d 196) (1992) (guilty verdicts on c harges of arm ed robbery and thef t by receiving m

utually exclusive because essential elem e nt of thef t by r e c e i v i n g is that the goods are stolen by s om eone other than the accused). See also Thom as v. United States, 314
F2d 936, 9 39 ( 5th Cir. 1963) ( v e r d icts m utually exclusive where jury convicted def endant

of sm uggling m arijuana into the United S t ates a nd obtaining s a m e m arijuana w ithin the

United States); United S tates v. Daigle, 149 F Supp. 409, 414 (D.C. Dist. Ct. 1957) (verdicts

m utually exclusive w here guilty verdict on one count n egatives a f a ct essential t o a f

inding

of guilt on second count); A llison v. May o, 29 So2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1947) (where j u ry convicted def

endant of breaking and entering and a lso of breaking without entering, guilty

verdicts a r e repugnant a nd cannot be sustained); Cross v. State, 374 A2d 620, 623 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1 977) (where def endant f ound g uilty of grand larceny and of receiving the sam e stolen goods, verdicts c ould not be sustained); Bell v. State, 150 A2d 908, 912 (Md. 1959) (verdict o f guilt o n t w o i n consistent counts, larceny and receiving stolen goods, def ective

because d ef

endant c annot be b oth thief and receiver as to sam e goods); S tate v. Speckm an, 391 SE2d 165, 166-167 (N.C. 1990) (verdicts of guilt f o r both em

bezzlem ent, which requires

that a def e ndant initially obtain property lawf ully

, a nd f

alse pretenses, which requires that the property

be initially

obtained unlawf

ully , are m

utually exclusive).

132

. We a c k n o w le d g e th a t su c h a h o l d i n g r e q u i r e s a de p a rtu re fro m o u r

ru lin g in Ja c k so n

. S ta re d e c isis, h o we v e r, is n o t a n in e x o ra b le c o m m a n d b u t

re q u ire s u s, w h e n c o n sid e rin g wh e th e r to re e xa m in e a prio r e rro n e o u s h o ld in g ,

to “b a la n c e th e im

p o rta n c e o f h a v in g th e qu e stio n de c id e d a g a i n s t t h e

im p o rta n c e o f h a v in g it d

e c id e d rig h t

. ” S ta te v

. Ja c k so n , 2 8 7 Ga

. 64 6, 65 8 (6 9 7

S E2 d 75 7 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (e m

p h a sis in o rig in a l). “ In d o in g so , we c o n sid e r fa c to rs su c h

a s th e a g e o f th e p re c e d e n t, th e re lia n c e in te re sts a t sta k e , th e wo rk a b ility o f th e

d e c isio n , a

n d , m ost im

po rta n tly , th e so u n d n e ss o f its re a so n in g .” Id

.

Co n sid e ra tio n o f th e se fa c to rs we ig h s he a v ily in fa v o r of o ve rru li n g

Ja c k so n

. Ja c k so n w a s d e c id e d ju st o v e r a d e c a d e a go , a n d its h old in g p ro v id e d

n o su b sta n tiv e rig h ts o r o th e r su b sta n tia l re lia n c e issu e s. S e e S ta te v

. Ja c k so n ,

su p ra , 2 8 7 Ga

. a t 6 5 8 (o v e rru lin g p re c e d e nt th a t a ffe c te d n o p ro p e rty o r c o n tra c t

rig h ts a n d e sta

b li s h e d n o su b sta n tiv e rig h ts); Ge o rg ia De p t. o f Na tu ra l

Re so u rc e s v

. Ce n te r fo r a S u sta in a b le Co a s t

, 2 9 4 Ga

. 5 9 3

, 6 0 1 (2 ) (7 5 5 S E2 d

1 8 4 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (o v e rru lin g p re c e d e n t le ss th a n 2 0 y e ars o ld ); S ta te v

. Hu dso n , 2 9 3

Ga

. 6 5 6

, 6 5 6 -6 5 7

, 6 6 1 -6 62 (7 4 8 S E 2 d 9 1 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ) ( o v e r r u lin g 3 8 -y e a r-o ld

p re c e de n t). As d isc u sse d a b o v e , Ja c k so n ’s re a s o n in g a n d its re lia n c e o n

Du n a g a n we re un so u n d a n d m isp la c e d a n d

, a s p o in te d o u t by Ju stic e Na h m ia s

14in h is c o n c u rre n c e in Alla b e n v

. S ta te

, 2 9 4 Ga

. 3 15

, 3 2 4 (7 5 1 S E2 d 8 0 2 ) (2 0 1 3 )

( N a h m ia s, J., c o n c u rrin g ), its h o ld in g c re a te s le g a l in c o n gru itie s le a d i n g t o

in c o nsiste nt a n d u n wa n te d c o n se q ue n c e s. W e , th e re fo re , o ve rru le Ja c kso n a n d

its p ro g e n y 4 a

n d h o ld th a t wh e re th e e v id e n c e a u th o riz e s a fin d in g th a t a

d e fe n d a n t’s re c k le s s c o n d u c t is a n in c lu d e d c rim e in a n a gg ra v a te d a ssa ult,

v e rd ic ts fin d in g him g u ilty of b o th o f th o se offe nse s a re n o t m u tu a lly e x c lu siv e

.

3

. In th e p re se n t c a se , th e ju ry fo u n d S p rin g e r n ot g u ilty o f fe lo ny m u rd e r

b u t re tu rn e d g u ilty v e rd ic ts o n c h arg e s of a g gra v a te d a ssa ult a n d i n v o l u n ta ry

m a n sla u g h te r p re d ic a te d o n th e o ffe n se o f re c k le ss c on d u c t. Th e tria l c o urt

c h a rg e d th e ju ry a s to b o th th e (a ) (1 ) an d (a ) (2 ) de fin itio ns o f a ssa ult,

a u th oriz in g th e ju ry to re tu rn a v e rd ic t b a se d o n e ith e r de fin itio n, a nd th e ju ry ’s

v e rd ic t a s to a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt d id n o t sp e c ify o n wh i c h s u b s e c tio n it wa s

b a se d, le a v in g th e p o ssib ility th a t th e ju ry d e te rm in e d S p rin g e r b o th c o m m itte d

th e a ssa u lt with th e in te n t to h a rm th e v ic tim a n d

, a t th e sa m e tim e , c on sc io u sly

d isre g a rd e d a su b sta n tia l a n d u n ju stifia b le risk th a t h is a c t o f sh oo tin g a g u n in

4 These cases include Allaben v. S tate, 294 Ga. 3 1 5 ( 1 ) ( 7 5 1 SE2d 802) (2013);

W a lker v

. State, 293 Ga. 709 (2) (749 SE2d 663) (2013); Dry d en v

. State, 285 Ga. 281, 282-

283 (2009); Flores v. State, 277 Ga. 780 (2) (596 SE2d 114) (2004); H olcom b v. State, 310

Ga. App. 853 (2) (714 SE2d 407) (2011); a n d Reddick v. State, 264 Ga. App. 487 (4) (2003).

15a p u b lic p a rk in g lo t wo u ld c a u se h a rm o r e n d a n ge r th e sa fe ty o f an o th e r. We

c o n c lu d e , b a se d o n th e d isc u ssio n a bo ve , th a t th e se a re n o t fin d in gs th a t a r e

lo g ic a lly a n d le g a lly e x c lu siv e o f th e o th e r. Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e d e c i s i o n o f th e

Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls is re v e rse d

.

Ju d g m e n t re v e rse d

. All th e Ju stic e s c o n c ur, e x c e pt Be n h a m an d Hu n ste in

,

JJ., wh o d isse n t.

16S 14 G1 5 3 9

. THE S TATE v . S P RINGER.

BENHAM, d isse n tin g

.

S ta b ility a n d c e rta in ty in la w a re d e sirab le ; sta re d e c isis
is a v a lid a nd c o m

p e llin g b a sis o f a rg u me n t

. ...Th e d o c trin e o f sta re d e c isis se e m s to b e le ss v ia b le y e a r b y

y e a r. Th e h a ste with wh ic h [o u r p re c e d e nt] h a s b e e n

... d isapp ro v e d d a m a g e s th e re liab ility a nd c r e d ib ility o f

t h i s [C] o u rt' s d e c isio n s a n d a d d s to in sta b ility an d

u n c e rta in ty in th e la w. 5

I write b e c a

u s e I r e s p e c t f

u l l y d isa g re e with th e m a

jo rity ’s o v e rru lin g

Ja c k so n v

. S ta te

, 2 7 6 Ga

. 4 0 8 (5 77 S E2 d 57 0 ) (2 00 3), a nd its p ro g e n y

. 6 With

th e in sta n t o p in io n , th e m a jo rity will u n d o o v e r a d e c a d e ’s w o rth o f p re c e d e n t,

5 (Punctuation a

nd citation omitted.) Grissom v. Gleason, 262 G a. 374, 378 (418 SE2d 27) (1992) (B enham, J

. , concurring specially ).

6 I n J ackson v. State, we held that:

[ A] verdict of g uil t y a s t o ag g ravated assault based on OCGA § 16-5-20(a)(1) requires a finding of an intentional infliction of injury

, which precludes the element

of criminal neg lig ence in reckless conduct. [ Cit.] [ W e] recog n iz e that the requisite

mental states for these two offenses cannot log ically and leg ally co-ex ist. " Mutual

e x clusion means that a f

inding of g uilt on the essential elements of on e c o u n t b y definition ex cludes a f

inding of g uilt based on an e ssential element of another count." [ Cit.] A f inding of g uilt on the es s ential element of criminal intent for ag g ravated

assault based on OCGA § 1 6-5-20(a)(1) thus ex cludes a finding of g uilt based on the essential element of criminal neg lig ence for reckless conduct.

(Emphasis in orig inal.) I d. at 412. This led us to determine that the defendant in J ackson v. State

could not simultaneously b e convi c t e d o f felony murder predicated on an OCGA § 16-5-20(a)(1)

ag g r avated assault and involuntary manslaug hter predicated o n r eckless conduct. I d

. W e also

concluded that, b e cause the evidence supported a conviction on ag g r a vated assault p ursuant to
OCGA § 1 6-5-20(a)(1) and OCGA § 16-5-20(a)(2), the d efendant was entitled to a new trial in order to avoid usurping the province of the jury . I d. at 413.in c lu din g a d e c isio n th is Co u rt m a d e ju st la st y e a r. S e e Owe ns v. S ta te

, 2 9 6 Ga

.

2 0 5 (7 6 6 S E2 d 6 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Th e m a jo rity h a s fa ile d to e xp la in wh a t h a s c h a n g e d

so d ra m a tic a lly in th e p a st twe lv e m o n th s th a t we m u st d o a w a y w i t h o v e r a

d e c a d e ’s wo rth o f p re c e de n t. In fa c t, to d a y ’s d e c isio n is ba se d o n a re -re a d in g

o f a c a se th a t we de c id e d fiv e y e a rs b e fo re Ja c k so n v

. Sta te

. Se e Du n a g a n v

.

S ta te

, 2 6 9 Ga

. 5 90 (5 0 2 S E2 d 7 2 6 ) (1 9 9 8 ). S p e c ific a lly

, th e m a jo rity o p in e s:

“ Re a d p ro p e rly

, D u n a g a n sta n d s o n ly fo r th e we ll-e sta b lish e d p ro p ositio n th a t

p ro o f o f c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e c a n n o t s u b stitu te fo r c rim in a l in te n t fo r th ose

o ffe n s e s w h e r e th e o n ly d iffe re n c e b e twe e n th e o ffe n se s is a g re a te r o r le sse r

m e n ta l c u lp a

b ility .” 7

7 The majority anchors its analy sis on the following p hrase from the D u n a g a n opinion:

“...criminal intent and criminal neg lig ence are not int er c h a ng eable in those instances where the

mental culpability of the actor is the essential element that disting uishes two separate crimes, with
separate penalties, for committing the same behavior

. ” 2 6 9 G a. a t 592. The full parag raph from which the phrase was culled reads as follows:

Althoug h the trial court relied on OCGA § 16–2–1 (defining the e lements of a crime)

in charg ing the jury that criminal neg lig ence c an su b s t i t u te for criminal intent,

criminal intent and c r i m i n a l neg lig ence are not interchang eable in those instances

where the mental c ul pability of the actor is the essential element that disting uishes

two separate crimes, w ith separate penalties, for committing the same behavior. Such

an instance ex ists with ag g ravated assault based on OCGA § 16–5–20(a)(1) a nd

reckless conduct: whe r e t he proscribed c onduct is the r esult of the actor' s criminal intent, the L e g islature has d et e r m i n e d that the offense constitutes the felony of

ag g ravated assault whereas that same conduct which is the result of the actor' s criminal neg lig ence supports a conviction only of reckless c o n d u c t

. OCGA §

16–5–60. See L in d s e y v. State, 262 Ga. 665, 666 (2)(b) (424 SE2d 616 (1993) (“Reckless conduct is a n act of criminal n eg lig ence, rather than an intentional act,

2Th e m a jo rity ’s re -re a d in g o f Du n a g a n , wh ic h w a s ci t e d in Ja c k so n v

.

S ta te

, is lim ite d a

n d in a c c u ra te

. I n Du n a g a n , we o ve rru le d a ll c a se s th a t h a d

h e ld “ th a t a n a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt w ith a d e ad l y we a p o n b a se d o n OCGA §

1 6

– 5– 2 0 (a )(1 ) c a n be c o m m itte d b y c rim in a l n e g lig e nc e .” 2 6 9 Ga

. a t 59 3

. We

fu rth e r h e ld t h a t t h e tria l c o u rt in Du n a g a n e rre d wh e n it c h a rg e d th e ju ry th a t

c rim in a l n e gl i g e n ce c o u ld b e su b stitu te d fo r c rim in a l in te n t. Id

. We a lso

d e c id e d th a t wh e n a n a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt is b a se d o n OCGA § 16 –5

– 2 0 (a )(2 ),

th e re is no re a so n to c h a rg e o n c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e be c a u se it is th e sta te o f

m in d o f th e v ic tim th a t is a t p la y , a n d n o t th e sta te o f m in d of th e de fe nd a n t. Id

.

a t 5 9 4

. Mo st im

p o rta n tly

, we v a c a te d Du n a g an ’s c on v ic tio n fo r fe lo n y m u rd e r

b e c a u s e i t wa s im

p ossib le to d e te rm in e wh e th e r th e ju ry b a se d its v e rd ic t o n

OCGA § 1 6 –5

– 2 0 (a )(1 ) (in te n tio n a l c o n d u c t) o r OCGA § 1 6

– 5– 20 (a )(2 ) (in te n t

o f d e fe n d a n t in a

p p o site ). T h is sa m e d ile m m a w a s a t t h e h e a rt o f Ja c k so n v

.

S ta te

.

In d e e d, th e m a

jo rity ’s p a rsin g o f a sin g le p h ra se in Du n a g a n a n d

that causes b odily harm or endang ers the bodily safety of another”); see a lso B rewton

v. State, 216 G a. App. 346 (454 SE2d 558) (1995), overruled on others g rounds, 266

Ga. 160 (465 SE2d 668) (1996) (crime of reckless c onduct is an instance of criminal

neg lig ence, rather than a culpable act of either g eneral or specific criminal intent).

I d.

3in a c c ura te ly re -c a stin g th e b a sic c o n c lu sio n s th e re in d o n o t re n d e r u n te na b le th e

c o re an a ly sis in Ja c k so n v

. S ta te th a t c o n v ic tio n s fo r fe lo n y m u rd e r p re d ic a te d

o n a g g ra v a te d a ssa ult a n d in v o lu n ta ry m a nsla u g hte r p re d ic a te d o n re c k le ss

c o n d u c t a re m

u tu a lly e xc lu siv e if it is u n k n own wh e th e r th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic t o n th e

a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt wa s ba se d o n OCGA § 1 6– 5– 2 0 (a )(1 ) (in te n tio n a l c o n d u c t)

o r O CGA § 1 6

– 5

– 2 0 (a )(2 ) (in te n t o f d e fe n da n t in a p po site ). S e e Ja c k so n v

.

S ta te , 2 7 6 Ga

. a t 4 1 2, n. 5

. Th e m a jo rity o p in io n is o th e rwise u n p e rsu a siv e a s

it re h a sh e s a rg u m e n ts m a d e b y Ju stic e Ca rle y in h is lo n e d isse nt to th e m a jo rity

o p in io n in Ja c k so n v. Sta te

– a rg u m e n ts th a t we re d u ly c o n sid e re d an d re je c te d

twe lv e y e a rs a g o

. 8

It is o b v io u s wh y th e re a re th o se wh o wo u ld lik e to se e Ja c k so n v . S ta te

a n d its p ro g e ny up e n d e d a s it is tro u b le so m e a n d e x p e nsiv e to re try c a se s in

th e se c irc u m sta n c e s. It is h a rd to u n d e rsta n d wh y S prin g e r p u rsu e d h is a p p e a l

o n th is g ro u n d sin c e h e su c c e ssfu lly a v o id e d a fe lo n y m u rd e r c h arg e in th e first

in sta n c e

. 9 In a ny e v e n t, it is n o t n e c e ssa ry to o v e rru le Ja c k so n v

. S ta te a n d its

8 Notably

, J ustice Carley also dissented in Dunag an which the majority now r e lies on heavily in this case in support of its dispensing with stare decisis.

9 Most other defendants seeking relief pursuant to J ackson v. State, have been convicted of felony murder (ag g r avated assault) and involuntary manslaug hter (reckless conduct).

4p ro g e n y to a v o id su c h c irc u m sta n c e s. P ro se cu to rs a n d de fe nse a tto rn e y s c a n

a v o id th e se situ a tio n s b y sim p ly b e c o m in g fa m ilia r with th e g ov e rn in g la w (i.e

.,

Ja c k so n v

. S ta te a n d its p ro g e n y ) a n d stru c tu rin g v e rd ic t fo rm s so th e re is n o

d o u bt a s to wh a t th e ju ry is d e c id in g wh e n c rim e s in v o lv in g in te n t a n d

n e g lig e n c e a re in p la y

.

In sh o rt, th e m a

jo rity o p in io n do e s n o th in g to c o n vin c e m e th a t d istu rb in g

we ll-s e t t l e d l a w is w a rra n te d in th is c a se

. Ac c o rd in g ly

, I m ust re sp e c tfu lly

d isse nt. I a m

a u th o riz e d to sta te th a t Ju stic e Hu n ste in jo in s in th is d isse n t.

5