Opinion ID: 848647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: defendant's internet activity

Text: The prosecutor made the alternative argument that defendant distributed child sexually abusive material over the Internet. However, the jury acquitted him of that crime. It specifically found that defendant did not use a computer or the Internet to communicate with another person to distribute or promote child sexually abusive material. MCL 750.145d. It found him guilty only of using a computer or the Internet to communicate with another person in order to possess child sexually abusive material. Id. We apply the same reasoning regarding this argument as did the Court of Appeals: Given the prosecutor's theory that defendant distributed child sexually abusive material by returning to Comcast the computer containing such material and the jury's verdict of acquittal on the charge of using a computer to distribute or promote such material, we conclude that defendant's conviction solely rests upon the theory primarily advanced by the prosecution at trial: that defendant distributed child sexually abusive material by returning to Comcast a computer that contained such material. Accordingly, our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to the theory that resulted in defendant's conviction. [260 Mich.App. at 208, 679 N.W.2d 77.] [Emphasis added.] In his concurrence, Chief Justice Taylor concludes that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict defendant of distributing child sexually abusive material. The basis for the conviction could have been that he shared such material with others on the Internet. The concurrence acknowledges that the jury specifically acquitted defendant of using a computer to distribute such material, but it observes that jury verdicts need not be consistent. We reason that, although inconsistent jury verdicts may be legally permissible, it does not follow that we should find verdicts inconsistent when it is possible to find them consistent. See Lagalo v. Allied Corp., 457 Mich. 278, 282, 577 N.W.2d 462 (1998) (`[i]f there is an interpretation of the evidence that provides a logical explanation for the findings of the jury, the verdict is not inconsistent.') (Citation omitted.) There is no disagreement that, here, the jury specifically acquitted defendant of using a computer to distribute child sexually abusive material, and it convicted him of distributing such material. It could have found him guilty of distributing the material in one of two ways: (a) finding that he shared the material with others on the Internet, or (b) finding that he distributed it by returning the computer to Comcast. The former would be inconsistent with the jury's verdict concerning the use of a computer to distribute child sexually abusive material charge; the latter would not be. Because we presume that the verdicts are consistent, we conclude that the jury convicted defendant of distributing the material by returning the computer to Comcast. [10]