Opinion ID: 2071626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legally Inconsistent Jury Verdict

Text: Davis was convicted of delivery of a narcotic and distribution of a narcotic within one thousand feet of a school, but acquitted of possession with intent to deliver. In analyzing an arguably inconsistent jury verdict, this Court follows two alternative approaches. The first approach is to determine if the jury verdict is inconsistent as a matter of law by examining the elements of each crime to determine if they are identical. If these elements are identical, the different verdicts may be legally inconsistent. [4] The second approach is to determine if the arguably inconsistent verdict could have been the result of jury lenity, in which case the verdict will remain undisturbed. [5] The two charges that are arguably inconsistent are delivery of a narcotic and possession of a narcotic with intent to deliver. The statute defines delivery as the actual, constructive or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance.... [6] The statute defines possession as in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes location in or about the defendant's person ... or otherwise within the defendant's reasonable control. [7] These crimes do not consist of identical elements, and a jury verdict convicting a defendant of delivery without possession is not inconsistent as a matter of law. The verdict is also sustainable on a separate rationale. The crime of delivery may have been based upon the one piece of crack cocaine delivered to the police and the crime of possession was based upon the three pieces of crack cocaine found near Davis' feet. The jury could have determined that Davis delivered the one piece of crack cocaine to the police officers but did not possess the three pieces of crack cocaine located near Davis' feet at the time of arrest. Moreover, if the apparent inconsistency of a jury's verdict can be explained by jury lenity, the conviction will be sustained. [8] Even if a defendant is convicted of a compound offense predicated upon a lesser offense, of which the defendant is acquitted, the verdict will stand so long as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a conviction of the lesser offense. [9] This theory is based upon the assumption that the jury, convinced of defendant's guilt, properly reached a verdict on the compound offense, and then, through mistake, compromise or lenity, acquitted on the lesser offense. [10] In this situation, the arguably inconsistent verdict is sustained because the State would be unable to remedy an inconsistent verdict of this nature without violating the U.S. Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause. [11] The State has offered evidence that Davis presented the police officers a brown paper bag containing four pieces of crack cocaine. After Davis sold one piece to the officers, a brown bag with three pieces of crack cocaine was found near his feet. It is entirely possible the jury felt Davis was guilty of delivery and possession, but acquitted him of possession out of lenity. Although the State could have offered additional evidence to prove Davis was guilty of delivery of a narcotic within one thousand feet of a school, the evidence offered was sufficient to support a prima facie case. Since the jury's verdict was not inconsistent as a matter of law and may have been the result of jury lenity, the jury's verdict is sustained.