Opinion ID: 2538523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the jury verdict was inconsistent

Text: [¶ 13] The jury convicted Moore of the charge of aggravated burglary; it acquitted Moore of the charges of aggravated assault, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502 (LexisNexis 2003), but found him guilty of the lesser misdemeanor charges of battery, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-501 (LexisNexis 2003). [¶ 14] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301 (Lexis-Nexis) provides that [a] person is guilty of burglary if, without authority, he enters or remains in a building, occupied structure or vehicle, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with intent to commit larceny or a felony therein. Pursuant to § 6-3-301(c), a person is guilty of aggravated burglary, if, in the course of committing the crime of burglary, the person: (i) Is or becomes armed with or uses a deadly weapon or a simulated deadly weapon; (ii) Knowingly or recklessly inflicts bodily injury on anyone; or (iii) Attempts to inflict bodily injury on anyone. [¶ 15] The State's theory of the charge of aggravated burglary was that Moore, while armed, entered into the James/Brian residence with the intent to feloniously assault Ms. James and Brian. Moore argues that since the jury did not convict him of the felony, but instead convicted him of the lesser misdemeanor charge of battery, there is no basis for the burglary conviction. Moore's contention is that since the jury did not believe he committed felonious assault, it could not have convicted him of entering into a residence with the intent to commit a felony. [¶ 16] This Court has previously noted several times that consistency in a jury's verdict is not necessary. Hankinson v. State, 2002 WY 86, ¶ 11, 47 P.3d 623, ¶ 11 (Wyo.2002). In Hankinson, the Court has specifically adopted the logic of Professor Wright: In a case in which there are multiple counts, each one is treated as if it were a separate indictment. The verdict on the various counts need not be consistent. An acquittal on one count does not prevent conviction on another, even though the evidence is the same and defendant could not have committed one crime without committing both, so long as the evidence is sufficient to support conviction on the count on which a guilty verdict was reached. 3 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 514 at 14-16 (1982). [¶ 17] The jury only had to determine that Moore entered the residence with the intent to commit a felony, in this case, aggravated assault. It was not necessary that they find that an aggravated assault actually occurred. The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict that he had the intent to commit the assault, and the evidence is equally sufficient to support the finding as to the lesser charge of battery. The verdict is not inconsistent.