Court Opinion

ID: 9569268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:12:13.654439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:46.028422
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s opinion because I find neither the facts of this case nor the law of this State requires reversal of the trial court’s judgment.
Cantrell and co-defendant Millsap were both charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The trial court charged the jury on the lesser-included offense of possession of cocaine. The record reveals that during the course of its deliberations, the jury presented the trial court with the question “[c]an a verdict be reached on the possession charge without a verdict on the intent to *704distribute charge?” Without objection by defense counsel, the trial court responded to this question by charging the jury:
You should first consider whether the State has proven possession with intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt. If so you would be authorized to find that defendant guilty. If not you should then consider whether the State has proven possession beyond a reasonable doubt. If so you would be authorized to find the defendant guilty of possession. If not, you should find the defendant not guilty.
The giving of such an instruction is not error. Leslie v. State, 211 Ga. App. 871, 872 (440 SE2d 757) (1994). The jury resumed deliberations but a brief time thereafter, the trial court had the jury brought back into the courtroom to inquire into their progress and determine whether the jury would like to continue deliberating that evening. The jury foreperson acknowledged that the jury was very close to reaching a verdict and declined the offer of further deliberations, stating that “I think we can settle it right now.” When the court asked the foreperson if he had the verdict with him, the foreperson responded affirmatively and handed the court a sheet of paper on which had been written as to each defendant the jury’s finding of “guilty for the violation of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine” but also as to each defendant the statement that “[w]e the jury are unable to reach a ver die [t] on the charge of intent to distribute a controlled substance.”
With defense counsel agreeing that clarification was required, the trial court asked the jury whether the “unable to reach a verdict” language meant that “you have unanimously agreed that it hasn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [each defendant in turn] possessed cocaine with intent to distribute?” As to Cantrell, the foreperson replied that “[i]t hadn’t been unanimous.”5 The jurors and foreperson responded affirmatively to the court’s question whether the jury wanted to return to the jury room to discuss the matter further and, over objection that a verdict had been rendered, the trial court allowed deliberations to resume. The jury returned a verdict finding both defendants guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute as well as guilty of possession of cocaine.
Because a lesser-included offense by its very nature embodies at least one essential element of a greater offense, it is axiomatic that *705the defendant must necessarily be guilty of the lesser offense in order to be found guilty of the greater. However, a factfinder is not authorized to find a defendant guilty of a lesser offense and then decline to deliberate upon or otherwise consider a charged greater offense. Rather, the factfinder’s job is complete upon a finding of guilty on a lesser offense only in those instances where the factfinder has either determined that the State failed to carry its burden of proof as to those additional elements that constitute the greater offense or where the jury has hopelessly deadlocked on the greater offense. Hence, while a jury may find the evidence insufficient or deadlock on the greater offense, a jury cannot disregard or ignore the greater offense or fail or refuse to consider it altogether.
Instructing a jury to consider the greater offense first avoids the possibility that a jury will mistakenly conclude that its finding of guilty on a lesser offense has barred any consideration of the greater offense. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, it is neither unreasonable nor unforeseeable that a jury, in its internal handling of a case, may resolve the lesser offense before reaching the greater, given that a finding of not guilty on the lesser charge would end the need for further deliberations. In essence, the jury may merely have saved until the end of deliberations their resolution of a factually more controversial issue arising out of the additional elements of the greater offense. The fact that the jury approached a case in this reverse order does not, however, preclude the jury as a matter of law from deliberating upon and resolving the greater offense where, as a matter of fact, it is established that the jury has not reached and resolved the greater offense6 or otherwise hopelessly deadlocked thereon.
In this case the jury had been specifically instructed that it had to render a verdict on the greater offense before it could reach the lesser offense, receiving this instruction only a brief time before the trial court on its own volition brought the jury back into the courtroom to inquire about recessing for the evening. In response to inquiries initiated by the court, the jury foreperson handed over a previously prepared document which reflected that the jury had either disregarded the trial court’s instruction in regard to the sequence their deliberations should take or acted in reverse order on the matter before receiving the instruction (the latter being the more likely explanation given the time frame involved). While normally the sequence a jury follows would remain unknown and ultimately irrelevant, the trial court’s fortuitous interruption of the jury’s deliberations in this case had the effect of exposing the approach this *706particular jury had taken. Although this case is unusual because the jury had memorialized its preliminary findings, it is evident from the document given the court by the foreperson, the uncontroverted need for clarification, and the responses the trial court received from the jury, that no verdict had yet been returned in this case.7 All that the document proffered by the jury reflects is that the jury had a consensus on the possession element but disagreed over the intent to distribute elements.8 “Where a jury is unable to agree on a verdict, that disagreement is not itself a verdict.” Romine v. State, 256 Ga. 521, 525 (350 SE2d 446) (1986).
Decided May 6, 1996 —
Reconsideration denied May 23, 1996.
Troy R. Millikan, for appellant.
Lydia J. Sartain, District Attorney, Thomas A. Gump, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
This was not an instance in which the jury had reached a verdict on the greater offense and had found the defendant guilty only on the lesser offense; this was not an instance in which the jury had deadlocked on the greater offense and had settled, instead, on a verdict on the lesser offense. Rather, this is a case where, at the time the trial court interrupted their deliberations, the jury was in disagreement over the greater offense but in agreement as to one essential element of that greater offense, which was conclusive as to the lesser offense. Because the jury had neither resolved the intent to distribute charge for or against defendants nor reached an unbreakable impasse in their deliberations on that charge, the trial court correctly directed the jury to resume deliberating and did not err in refusing to make the jury’s preliminary finding the judgment of the court.
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears and Justice Carley join in this dissent.

 As to co-defendant Millsap, although the foreperson initially stated that the jury unanimously agreed that the charge had not been proven, after the trial court noted that other members of the jury were shaking their heads, the foreperson then clarified that the jury was not unanimous.

 The situation would, of course, be different where the jury finds the defendant not guilty of the lesser charge.

 Notwithstanding the antiquated writing style of the two cases cited by the majority, it is apparent from a reading of those cases that they are factually distinguishable in that they both involve verdicts that were returned by the juries therein. Nothing in those cases support the majority’s proposition that a finding of guilty on a lesser offense requires acquittal on the greater offense in situations where the evidence establishes that the jury has not completed its deliberations.

 There is no evidence that the jury in this case had deadlocked over the greater offense; rather, the evidence is that they disagreed over that offense but wanted to continue their deliberations. This crucial fact distinguishes this case from the foreign cases cited by the majority.