Opinion ID: 1891621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Verdicts Consistent

Text: The next issue raised by Johnson on appeal relates to the Superior Court's decision to deny his motion for a new trial on the conviction of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Second Degree. [15] Johnson was charged with Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree and Kidnapping in the First Degree. [16] The kidnapping count alleged that Johnson unlawfully restrained Collins for the purpose of sexually assaulting her. [17] Johnson was convicted of the lesser-included offense of Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree. [18] This required the jury to find that Johnson knowingly and unlawfully restrained Collins without having to decide the purpose of that restraint. In his motion for a new trial on the Unlawful Sexual Intercourse charge, Johnson argued that, by acquitting him of the charged offense of Kidnapping in the First Degree, the jury necessarily rejected the State's contention that Johnson had restrained Collins for the purpose of sexually assaulting her. This, Johnson argued, was inconsistent with the verdict convincing him of the lesser-included sexual assault offense of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Second Degree. The testimony at trial reflects that Johnson initially forced Collins to accompany him to locate his car. [19] Accordingly, there was a rational evidentiary basis for the jury to reject the State's contention that Johnson initially kidnapped Collins for the purpose of sexually assaulting her. The jury could have reasonably concluded from the evidence that Johnson subsequently decided to sexually assault Collins, when he arrived with her at his home, after he had already restrained her to look for his car. The Superior Court properly held that there was no verdict inconsistency.