Opinion ID: 2399779
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The inconsistent verdict theory.

Text: The Attorney General's office reasons that the jury unanimously agreed that defendant was guilty of felony murder based upon one of the underlying charged predicate felonies, but for reasons of lenity or mistake, it simply did not convict defendant of any of the robberies. The Attorney General relies on our decision in State v. Grey, 147 N.J. 4, 9, 685 A. 2d 923 (1996), in which every member of the Court agreed with the basic premise of the Dunn/Powell [2] doctrine that the inconsistency in the verdicts did not necessarily indicate that the jury was unconvinced of the defendant's guilt, but that such a verdict might indicate only an exercise of leniency or nullification. The Attorney General (as did the Essex County Prosecutor) emphasized that the trial court informed the jury no less than ten times in its charge that robbery was the basis for the felony-murder conviction. She argues that the references to any crime or one of the other felony charges on the list must be viewed in their context as closely following discussions of robbery and re-instructions on robbery. Defendant conceded that if the jury had been correctly charged that in order to convict of felony murder it must unanimously find that defendant had committed one of the predicate felonies, and if the jury had done exactly what it did in this caseconvict of felony murder but acquit of the underlying predicate feloniesthe Court would have to accept that verdict because of our general acceptance of the Dunn/Powell rule. Although we genuinely doubt that such an eventuality will occur, the Attorney General's theory could sustain the conviction had the jury not been misdirected by the trial court. In Grey, we directed the Committee on Model Criminal Jury Charges to consider revisions to the felony-murder charge. Grey, supra, 147 N.J. at 17, 685 A. 2d 923. The current Model Jury Charge reads: You cannot find the defendant guilty of felony murder unless you first find him/her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed (or attempted to commit) the crime charged in count ___. Model Jury Charges (Criminal), § 2C:11-3a(3) Felony MurderSlayer Participant (Jan. 27, 1997). An explanatory footnote to that portion of the charge provides the procedure to be employed if the defendant is charged with more than one predicate felony: Where defendant is accused of being engaged in the commission of more than one predicate crime (and, presumably, is so charged in the individual counts of the indictment), the jury should be instructed that they must unanimously agree that defendant has committed (or attempted to commit) at least one of the offenses charged. In appropriate cases, and when specifically requested by counsel, the jury should be instructed that it must agree unanimously on which predicate crime or crimes defendant was engaged in committing when the death was caused. [ Ibid. (citations omitted).] Obviously struggling with a cast of characters that included three drug pushers, one of whom was armed with a gun, and a disgruntled drug buyer, who was also said to be armed, the jury was trying to determine what could be the basis for the felony-murder charge. The last question that the jury asked the court after having been told that it could not consider the Pettie robbery was whether it could consider one of the other felony charges on the list. All parties agree that the jury's reference to a list was a reference to the indictment that was in its possession in the jury room and to the verdict sheet. Consistent with the charge, the jury found defendant guilty of at least one of the charges on the list, a weapons offense, and consequently found defendant guilty of felony murder. But for misdirection of the jury, we might have been able to sustain the conviction under Grey and Powell. However, this is not a case of an inconsistent verdict but of an illegal verdict.