Opinion ID: 1988800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inconsistent Jury Verdict

Text: The defendant also argues that his conviction on the first-degree robbery count is both logically and legally inconsistent with his acquittal on all of the firearms counts. He maintains that the jury obviously was not persuaded that the perpetrator was armed with a firearm, and therefore a critical element of the proof of first-degree robbery is absent. The state argues, on the other hand, that although defendant was acquitted of all of the gun charges, possession or use of a gun is not an element of first-degree robbery. The state maintains that because possession or use of a firearm is not an element of the crime of first-degree robbery for which defendant was convicted, the verdicts are not legally inconsistent. Whenever a verdict has been challenged as inconsistent because of different outcomes for different counts in the indictment or information, this Court has consistently followed the rule expressed in Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932). See, e.g., State v. Ramirez, 786 A.2d 368, 373 (R.I. 2001); State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d 377, 387 (R.I.2001); State v. Allessio, 762 A.2d 1190, 1191 (R.I.2000) (per curiam). In Dunn, 284 U.S. at 393, 52 S.Ct. 189 Justice Holmes observed that [c]onsistency in the verdict is not necessary because [e]ach count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment. Recognizing that a jury must be afforded broad power to arrive at inconsistent verdicts of acquittal and conviction through its traditional power to compromise, this Court will uphold logically inconsistent jury verdicts provided that the verdicts are legally consistent. State v. Romano, 456 A.2d 746, 764 (R.I.1983). In defining legally inconsistent verdicts, we have in the past noted that if the essential elements of the count[s] of which the defendant is acquitted are identical and necessary to prove the count of which the defendant is convicted, then the verdicts are inconsistent. Allessio, 762 A.2d at 1192 (quoting State v. Jette, 569 A.2d 438, 441 (R.I.1990), in turn quoting State v. Mercado, 263 S.C. 304, 210 S.E.2d 459, 460 (1974)). Even more helpful is the definition adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court: [v]erdicts of guilty of crime A but not guilty of crime B, where both crimes arise out of the same set of facts, are legally inconsistent when they necessarily involve the conclusion that the same essential element or elements of each crime were found both to exist and not to exist. People v. Frias, 99 Ill.2d 193, 75 Ill.Dec. 674, 457 N.E.2d 1233, 1235 (1983) (quoting People v. Murray, 34 Ill.App.3d 521, 340 N.E.2d 186 (1975)). Logically inconsistent verdicts, on the other hand, have been defined as verdicts that acquit and convict a defendant of crimes composed of different elements, but arising out of the same set of facts. People v. Rhoden, 299 Ill. App.3d 951, 234 Ill.Dec. 43, 702 N.E.2d 209, 213 (1998) (quoting People v. Klingenberg, 172 Ill.2d 270, 216 Ill.Dec. 813, 665 N.E.2d 1370, 1373 (1996)). Section 11-39-1(a) provides that [e]very person who shall commit: (1) robbery by use of a dangerous weapon; (2) robbery where a victim is injured; or (3) robbery where the victim is a person who is severely impaired or an elderly person; shall be guilty of first degree robbery    . Although the statute does not set forth the elements of the crime of robbery, this Court has held that the common-law definition of the felonious taking of money or goods of any value from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence, or putting him in fear is applicable. State v. Rodriquez, 731 A.2d 726, 729 (R.I.1999) (per curiam) (quoting State v. Shepard, 726 A.2d 1138, 1140 (R.I. 1999)). Clearly, the possession or use of a firearm is neither an essential element of common-law robbery nor of the statutory offense of first-degree robbery. The elements of the separate firearms counts against defendant are not necessary to prove the first-degree robbery count, and vice versa. We reach this conclusion foremost because an essential element of first-degree robbery is the use of a dangerous weapon, which can be a number of implements capable of causing serious harm, and not necessarily a firearm. The jury's acquittal of defendant on all the firearms counts does not necessarily preclude its concurrent finding of guilt on the first-degree robbery count. Here, the jury may have found that the elements of possessing and using a firearm did not exist. However, the jury did find that the elements of first-degree robbery where present. The existence of a firearm is not an element of first-degree robbery. First-degree robbery and the firearms counts against defendant are separate and distinct crimes that can stand alone. Therefore, the verdicts are legally consistent. See Romano, 456 A.2d at 764 (holding that two contrary verdicts on separate and distinct crimes are legally consistent). At trial, the state did not introduce a gun into evidence; indeed, no gun was ever recovered. Notwithstanding this lack of physical evidence, and the absence of evidence of any other dangerous weapon, defendant's conviction on the first-degree robbery count should stand. See State v. Andrade, 657 A.2d 538, 543 (R.I. 1995) (affirming a conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon and first-degree robbery, despite the state's failure to produce a weapon at trial). In Andrade, we stated on the facts of the case that [a]lthough the state aid not introduce the weapon into evidence, the jury could nevertheless infer that defendant had wielded an operative pistol on the basis of his actions and statements. Id. In affirming the first-degree robbery conviction in that case, we noted that the two victims of two separate crimes perpetrated by the same defendant both testified that they were frightened, that the defendant had aimed a gun at them during the crime, and that before leaving, the defendant once again aimed the gun at them and told one of them not to call the police and the other one not to move but to `give me five minutes.' Id. In the instant case, we note the following testimonial evidence: the robber aimed a gun at Lam; the robber twice told Lam not to move; the robber at one point cocked the barrel of the gun while his finger was on the trigger and put Lam in fear for his life. Despite the absence of a dangerous weapon at trial, the jury could have inferred from these facts that defendant used a dangerous weapon. While charging the jury on first-degree robbery, the trial justice correctly instructed that a dangerous weapon includes any item or instrument    [that] by the manner in which it may be used, or employed, is likely to injure seriously another person and that [a] gun is presumed to be a dangerous weapon, whether it is loaded or not. See State v. Jackson, 752 A.2d 5, 9-10 (R.I.2000) (adopting the rule that an unloaded but operable gun will be presumed to possess a per se present ability to carry out the offer to do bodily injury to another). From the overall context of the robber's actions and statements, we hold that the jury may have inferred that defendant aimed a gun at Lam and that he was capable of carrying out the threat implicit in his terrifying actions and statements. While we find that the verdicts are legally consistent, we recognize that they may not be logically consistent, inasmuch as defendant has been acquitted and convicted of crimes composed of different elements but arising out of the same set of facts. However, we will neither engage in speculation as to what the jury might have thought nor invade in any way the province of the jury and its traditional power to reach compromise verdicts. The verdicts are legally consistent and, therefore, defendant's conviction stands.