Opinion ID: 1911040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Unanimous Jury Verdict

Text: Defendant complains that the trial justice erred in failing to instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous both as to the offense and as to the theory of criminal liability  i. e., principal or accomplice liability. Defendant contends that under the Maine Constitution [22] and Rule 31(a), M.R. Crim.P., [23] a general verdict of guilty may not stand if it is possible that the jury arrived at its conclusion by a divided vote  i. e., some jurors voting for conviction on a principal theory, some voting for conviction on an accomplice theory, but no unanimous vote on either theory. Defendant further contends that, having failed to give the requested instruction, the justice should have taken other measures to insure theory unanimity, such as by polling the jurors to determine upon what theory they had based their guilty verdict. We do not reach the question raised by defendant because we conclude that the presiding justice, in instructing the jury to follow a structured sequence in the conduct of its deliberations, fully ensured a unanimous verdict both as to the offense and the theory of liability. We express no opinion, however, on whether such theory unanimity was legally required. In any event the jury necessarily understood from the charge that they needed to be unanimous on the theory of criminal liability. In the general portion of his charge, the justice instructed the jury that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offense charged, or any lesser included offense. He also told them that their verdict must be unanimous. In specific terms, he instructed them seriatim as to the elements of murder-principal, murder-accomplice, manslaughter-principal, and manslaughter-accomplice. He told them that they were to consider each offense in that order, proceeding to the next theory only after they had rejected the previous theory. Following these instructions, there were only two ways in which the jury could have returned its verdict finding defendant Goodall guilty of manslaughter: (1) having just rejected the murder-accomplice theory, they voted unanimously for guilty of manslaughter-principal, or (2) having just rejected manslaughter-principal, they voted unanimously for guilty of manslaughter-accomplice.