Opinion ID: 2244987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Verdicts Were Consistent

Text: Jones also claims that the jury's verdict on murder cannot stand because it is wholly inconsistent with its finding of not guilty on attempted murder. Because the shots that were fired at both victims all occurred in rapid succession, Jones reasons that if the jury did not find that the defendant intentionally attempted to kill Gamble, then it could not reasonably find that he intentionally killed Williams. When reviewing the consistency of jury verdicts, we will take corrective action only when the verdicts are extremely contradictory and irreconcilable. Butler v. State, 647 N.E.2d 631, 636 (Ind.1995) (quoting Hoskins v. State, 563 N.E.2d 571, 577 (Ind.1990)). We will not attempt to interpret the thought process of the jury in arriving at its verdict, and perfect logical consistency is not required. Id. To convict a defendant of attempted murder, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, acting with intent to kill the victim, engaged in conduct which constituted a substantial step toward commission of the crime. Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind.1991); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-5-1 (West 1986). Specific intent to kill is required, and a jury's determination that the defendant acted with any lesser degree of culpability requires that it find the defendant not guilty. See Spradlin, 569 N.E.2d at 948-50. To convict a defendant of murder, on the other hand, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either intentionally or knowingly killed another human being. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-42-1-1(1) (West Supp.1997). Under Indiana law, [a] person engages in conduct `knowingly' if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-2-2 (West 1986). Accordingly, even if the jury does not find that the defendant acted with specific intent to kill, it may convict him of murder if it finds that he was aware of a high probability that the victim's death could result from his actions. In the present case, Jones was charged with both murder and attempted murder based on the shots he fired which killed Williams and injured Gamble. If the jury found that Jones did not act with a specific intent to kill but that he was aware of a high probability that his actions could result in death, it could quite logically find him guilty of murder and not guilty of attempted murder. We thus cannot say that the verdicts are inconsistent.