Opinion ID: 1685116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Contradictory and Inconsistent Verdict

Text: Jackson assigns that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a new trial because the verdicts of guilty of murder in the first degree, but not guilty of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, are contradictory. Jackson argues that if the jury found Jackson guilty of murdering Perry, who died from gunshot wounds, but not guilty of using a deadly weapon to commit the murder, such a verdict is illogical and inconsistent. Jackson's argument, however, is without merit. The court's instructions to the jury included instruction No. 10, which stated: A Defendant can be guilty of a crime even though he personally did not commit every act involved in the crime so long as he aided someone else to commit it. A Defendant aided someone else if: (1) He encouraged or intentionally helped another person to commit the crime; and (2) The Defendant knew that the other person intended to commit the crime; and (3) The crime in fact was committed by that other person. Pursuant to this instruction, which accurately states the law and to which Jackson did not object, the jury could feasibly find Jackson guilty of first degree murder without finding that Jackson used a deadly weapon to do so. The verdicts reached by the jury are not necessarily inconsistent the above instruction reveals that there was a logical and consistent manner in which the jury could have reached its verdict. Based on the evidence presented, the jury could have concluded that Jackson aided in the murder of Perry and was thus guilty of murder under instruction No. 10, but did not personally fire a deadly weapon. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Jackson a new trial on this ground.