Court Opinion

ID: 9549261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:15:28.21752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:02.444650
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
specially concurring, with whom ROSE, Chief Justice, joins.
I agree with the other members of the court that this case must be affirmed. I cannot join with them, however, in the justification for affirmance found in that part of the opinion which deals with inconsistent verdicts. I am critical of the apperception of the majority in two respects. If, as the majority argues, the issue of inconsistent verdicts was not properly preserved in the trial court then there is no justification for considering that issue on the merits. Yet the majority of the court chooses to find that these verdicts were not inconsistent when the correct rule is that a claim of inconsistent verdicts in a criminal case does not present an issue for review.
My primary concern is the manner in which this court appears to recede from State v. Hickenbottom, 63 Wyo. 41, 178 P.2d 119 (1947), in which this court quoted the ratiocination of Mr. Justice Holmes set forth in Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356, 80 A.L.R. 161 (1932), as follows:
“Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment. [Citations.] If separate indictments had been presented against the defendant for possession and for maintenance of a nuisance, and had been separately tried, the same evidence being offered in support of each, an acquittal on one could not be pleaded as res judicata of the other. Where the offenses are separately charged in the counts of a single indictment the same rule must hold.”
It is my view that the holding of State v. Hickenbottom, supra, is that this court, as a matter of law, will not concern itself with inconsistent verdicts in criminal cases because inconsistent verdicts do not present a *1245ground for relief from the judgment and sentence of the court. This rule is in harmony with that of the federal courts and a majority of the courts of the other states. United States v. Previte, 648 F.2d 73 (1st Cir.1981). Annotation 18 A.L.R.3d 259 (1968); 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 514 (1982).
I perceive the true justification for this rule to be that it avoids any possibility of speculation with respect to jury deliberations in criminal cases. As I understand the rule, it establishes the proposition that inconsistent verdicts in criminal cases have no legal significance save in the instance of double jeopardy. Even though the same evidence may be relied upon to prove the elements of crimes separately charged in different counts of the same indictment, if a conviction on one count cannot be invoked in aid of a claim of double jeopardy with respect to trial on a second count, then verdicts of guilty as to one count and not guilty as to the other, as a matter of law, are not inconsistent, and such a claim will not be considered on appeal. This rule is sound and would adequately dispose of other cases in our jurisprudence in which this issue has been touched upon. See Mainville v. State, Wyo., 607 P.2d 339 (1980); Padilla v. State, Wyo., 601 P.2d 189 (1979); and Hahn v. State, 78 Wyo. 258, 322 P.2d 896 (1957). Essentially it has been invoked by other courts dealing with such issues in cases involving multiple sexual assault charges. State v. Flynn, 109 Ariz. 545, 514 P.2d 466 (1973); State v. Fairfax, 42 Wash.2d 777, 258 P.2d 1212 (1953).
Consequently, I would dispose of the issue of inconsistent verdicts simply by noting that the offenses charged in the indictment were based upon different acts of sexual penetration as defined in § 6 — 4-301(a)(ix), W.S.1977. Since either an acquittal or conviction of any such count would not provide the accused with a double jeopardy defense as to any other such count which properly was charged, I would hold that there was no possibility of inconsistent verdicts as a matter of law based upon our holding in Hiekenbottom v. State, supra. There is no possibility of inconsistent verdicts, regardless of the jury’s determination with respect to the credibility of witnesses, and I could not in any way rely upon the credibility rule in resolving the issue of inconsistency.
I have one other concern. I do not possess the percipience to recognize why Rule 32, W.R.Cr.P., would require an objection in the trial court to the verdict which the jury returns in order to appeal from an unambiguous but defective verdict. Rule 32, W.R.Cr.P., does not, on its face, say that, and such a requirement assumes that if an objection were made the court could resubmit the case to the jury after its verdict was returned. This assumption flies in the face of the proposition recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States that the jury “has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.” Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920). A requirement that the defendant urge in the trial court the verdict error is a rule without a reason if the trial court has no power or authority to correct the matter. In my view the trial court has neither such power nor authority in criminal cases.
United States v. Previte, supra, relied upon by the majority, does not support such a proposition. The language quoted by the majority out of context deals with verdict ambiguity. In Cloman v. State, Wyo., 574 P.2d 410, 412 (1978), this court described by example verdict ambiguity. In the instant case verdict ambiguity was not an issue, and for that reason reliance upon United States v. Previte, supra, is not appropriate. Furthermore, the First Circuit Court of Appeals went on, following the quoted language, to consider the claim of verdict inconsistency which it would not have done had the language quoted by the majority been pertinent to that claim of error.
Conceding that the reliance in the majority upon the provisions of Rule 32, W.R. Cr.P., well may be dictum, I find it to be an inappropriate rule, and one which should not be followed in criminal cases. I am not persuaded that our system of criminal jurisprudence demands that the defendant insist *1246upon the repair of defects in the prosecution’s case which would result in the assurance that he is lawfully convicted at the hazard of waiving his right to claim the defect on appeal. It is not the duty of the defendant to prosecute himself. If, as we have said, an improper verdict confers no authority upon the trial court to enter a judgment or sentence, then the verdict error should be treated as a jurisdictional matter which can be raised at any time. See Hatheway v. State, Wyo., 623 P.2d 741 (1981); State v. Chambers, 70 Wyo. 283, 249 P.2d 158 (1952); Thomson v. State, 21 Wyo. 196, 130 P. 850 (1913).