Opinion ID: 1541375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Procedure to be Followed in Challenging Inconsistent Verdicts at Trial

Text: The Majority opinion properly notes that where the issue was preserved . . . inconsistent verdicts shall no longer be allowed. Majority slip op. at 21. Because of the sea change announced by the Majority's opinion, some prospective direction is necessary and desirable to highlight the procedure required in order for a defendant to preserve for appellate review a challenge to a legally inconsistent verdict. The jury may render a legally inconsistent verdict to show lenity to the defendant. Muller, supra at 784; Comment, supra at 28. The defendant should not be foreclosed from accepting the jury's lenity as a result of the holding of the Majority opinion. Nevertheless, we should not permit the defendant to accept the jury's lenity in the trial court, only to seek a windfall reversal on appeal by arguing that the jury's verdicts are inconsistent. Accordingly, a defendant must note his or her objection to allegedly inconsistent verdicts prior to the verdicts becoming final and the discharge of the jury. Otherwise, the claim is waived. [9] If a defendant claims that a verdict is inconsistent to the point of being self-destructive, he must present that claim to the circuit court before the jury is discharged; if he does not, he waives the claim. State v. Flemons, 144 S.W.3d 877, 881 (Mo.Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Pelz, 845 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Mo.Ct.App.1992) (Defense counsel stood silent during the court's perusal of the error and the prosecutor's positive acceptance of the verdict. This silence, operating as an acceptance of the verdict, waived any further review. . . .); People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, 452 N.Y.S.2d 12, 13, 437 N.E.2d 271, 272 (1982) (mem.) (Following discharge of the jury, defense counsel complained, for the first time, of the asserted inconsistency. At this point, it was no longer possible to remedy the defect, if any, by resubmission to the jury for reconsideration of its verdicts. Such a protest must be registered prior to the discharge of the jury properly to preserve the issue for review in this court. (citation omitted)). A verdict that has not been followed by either polling or hearkening, has not been properly rendered and recorded, and is a nullity. Jones v. State, 173 Md.App. 430, 457, 920 A.2d 1, 16 (2007). It is in the absence of a demand for a poll that a hearkening is required for the proper recordation of a verdict. Jones v. State, 384 Md. 669, 684, 866 A.2d 151, 160 (2005). In the absence of a proper demand to have the jury polled, the hearkening and ensuing acceptance of the verdict finally removes the matter from the jury's consideration. But, despite a hearkening, if a demand for a poll is duly made thereafter, it is the acceptance of the verdict upon the poll that removes the verdict from the province of the jury. In other words, the jury has control of the verdict until it is final. Absent a demand for a poll, the verdict becomes final upon its acceptance when hearkened. When a poll is demanded, the verdict becomes final only upon its acceptance after the poll. Smith v. State, 299 Md. 158, 168, 472 A.2d 988, 993 (1984). Upon timely objection by the defendant [10] to legally inconsistent verdicts, the trial court should instruct or re-instruct the jury on the need for consistency and the range of permissible verdicts. The jurors then should be permitted to resume deliberation. The jury is free to resolve the inconsistency either by returning verdict in the defendant's favor, convicting on the implicated counts, or deadlocking on a charge so that no inconsistent finding results. Until the announcement that the verdict has been recorded, the jury has the right to amend or change any verdict; and when it is so amended it is the real verdict of the jury and it may be properly accepted by the court. Heinze v. State, 184 Md. 613, 617, 42 A.2d 128, 130 (1945). [11] In sum, a defendant must note his objection to the inconsistent verdict while the trial court has an opportunity to remedy the error, i.e., before the verdict is final and the jury is discharged. Failure to do so constitutes waiver. Judge BATTAGLIA authorizes me to represent that she joins this concurring opinion generally. Judge WILNER authorizes me to represent that he joins in Part C of this concurrence.