Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment. Neil's argument that these verdicts are inconsistent and the conviction should therefore be overturned is unpersuasive, as inconsistent verdicts have long been a device juries have employed to administer what they determine to be just. The verdict will not be reversed based solely on an apparent inconsistency. Accordingly, Neil's argument that his conviction should be reversed due to an inconsistency in verdicts is rejected. The next issue is whether the jury's determination that Neil did not point the firearm at warden Brown eliminates the lawful authority element that must be present for a resisting arrest conviction.
Lawful authority goes to whether the officer's actions are conducted in accordance with the law.
This standard is often referred to as probable cause. For example, even though a jury may find a person not guilty of a charged crime, that does not mean the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, this court may not reverse a conviction unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State and the conviction, is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact acting reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, viewing the evidence in this light, and most favorably to the jury's verdict, as this court must, the jury could reasonably find that warden Brown had probable cause to believe Neil had committed a crime and therefore was acting with lawful authority. For whatever reason, the jury found Neil not guilty of pointing a firearm, but guilty of resisting arrest.