Opinion ID: 2292857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Verdict Irregularities.

Text: The jury initially returned verdicts finding Paulley and Gunn guilty of all homicide and burglary chargesboth principal and every lesser-included offense. Specifically, as to the homicide, Gunn and Paulley were each found guilty of murder, manslaughter in the first degree, and manslaughter in the second degree; Paulley was additionally found guilty of facilitation to murder, facilitation to manslaughter in the first degree, and facilitation to manslaughter in the second degree. As to burglary, Gunn and Paulley were each found guilty of both burglary in the first degree and attempted burglary in the first degree. When questioned by the trial court, the foreperson stated that the jury had found the defendants guilty of all counts because the Commonwealth had stated in closing that the defendants were guilty of the lesser offenses if they were guilty of the principal offenses. Over objection, the trial court denied motions for directed verdicts on the greater offenses and motions for mistrial. Instead, after an overnight recess, the trial court directed the jury to return to deliberations and clarify under which homicide or burglary theories it intended to convict Paulley and Gunn. [44] After renewed deliberations, the jury returned verdicts finding Paulley and Gunn guilty of the principal offenses, murder and robbery in the first degree. On appeal, Gunn and Paulley contend they were entitled to a directed verdict on the greater offenses or a mistrial. Obviously, this unique factual scenario is highly unlikely to recur on remand. And we are highly skeptical that a mistrial was warranted. However, we need not definitively determine whether Paulley and Gunn were entitled to such a drastic curative measure because their cases are already being remanded to the trial court on other grounds. Nevertheless, we shall briefly discuss the directed verdict argument since Gunn and Paulley would not be eligible to be retried on the principal offenses of murder and robbery if we accept their argument that the jury's finding of guilt on the lesser-included offenses entitled them to a directed verdict on the principal offenses. We have already held there was sufficient evidence to submit the principal burglary and murder charges to the jury. Moreover, the jury's highly unusual verdicts cannot be deemed an acquittalimplied or actualof any principal charges since the jury also expressly found Paulley and Gunn guilty of the principal offenses. So the doctrine of implied acquittal provides no relief to either Gunn or Paulley since there were no acquittals. Our precedent is clear that [a] defendant may not be charged and convicted of both a major offense and lesser-included offense arising out of the same facts. [45] So the jury's initial finding of guilt on both principal and lesser-included offenses was erroneous. But precedent counsels us to view the jury's improper findings of guilt on lesser-included offenses as being mere surplusage, especially since the trial court inquired of the jury about its intent and permitted the jury to correct its error. [46] So the jury's improper initial verdicts do not entitle Gunn or Paulley to relief, nor does the curative action the trial court took in order to correct the jury's errors.