Court Opinion

ID: 9653387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:45:48.966063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:57.444503
License: Public Domain

DONAHUE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I fully agree with the statement in the majority opinion that “the rule of law requires that the verdict must not be repugnant nor inconsistent,” and that “sueh a rule is, of course, settled and recognized, and is founded on necessity.”
I also agree with the further statement in the majority opinion that the defendant cannot complain if he be erroneously acquitted of an offense charged in one count of the indictment, and properly convicted of an offense charged in another count of the indictment, although the same evidence clearly established his guilt as to both. I cannot, however, concur in the majority opinion as to the application of these settled principles of law to the facts of this case. In my opinion, the rule as stated in the authorities cited is limited to- cases in which the offenses charged in the several counts are separate and independent crimes, and can have no application where the offenses charged in the counts upon which defendant has been acquitted are essential elements of the crime of which he has been convicted.
The fourth count charges the defendant with maintaining a nuisance in violation of section 21 of title 2 of the National Prohibition Act. No evidence was offered by the government tending to prove the defendant *606guilty of this offense other than the evidence tending to prove unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor as charged in the first count, unlawful possession of property designed and intended for use- in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, as charged in the second count, and the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, as charged in the third count.
The jury found that the evidence offered by the government was not sufficient to prove the defendant guilty of'either of these offenses and returned a verdict of “not guilty” on the first, -second, and third counts, but, notwithstanding no other or further evidence was offered by the government tending to prove any other essential element of maintaining a nuisance as defined by the National Prohibition Act, found the defendant guilty of this offense as charged in the fourth count.
This is not merely a logical inconsistency, such as arises' where a jury returns a verdict of not guilty on one count, and guilty on another count charging a separate and distinct offense, when the same evidence equally justifies a conviction on both counts, but a legal inconsistency, not reconcilable upon any tenable theory. If this verdict is not fatally inconsistent and repugnant, then these terms may as well be dropped from our legal vocabulary.
It seems to me that no different question would be presented if the defendant had been indicted upon the one count for maintaining a nuisance, and the jury, by special verdict, found the defendant had not manufactured, not sold, not kept, and not bartered intoxicating liquor in violation of title 2 of the National Prohibition Act, but nevertheless found him guilty of maintaining a nuisance, as defined by section 21 of that act. It would hardly be contended that such a verdict should be sustained, and yet that is substantially what the jury did in this ease.
While, as stated in the majority opinion, “the power of the jury to decide questions of fact (within the limitations just mentioned) is supreme and not subject to interference of the court,” nevertheless the courts have some functions to perform, and I take it that the first and most important one is to compel an intelligent administration of justice.
If a jury find a defendant is. not guilty of any essential element of the offense charged, and yet find Mm guilty of that offense, I conceive it to be the duty of the court to correct that self-evident mistake, not only that justice may be intelligently administered in that particular ease, but also to the end that juries may understand that they are expected to exercise a reasonable degree of common sense, and arrive at their verdicts upon a consideration of the evidence and the law as given by the court, and not by whim, fancy, caprice, or guesswork.
It seems .clear to me that this jury did not reach this verdict by a reasonably intelligent consideration of the law or the evidence, but rather by its total failure to consider or to comprehend either. Such a verdict is not entitled to the stamp of judicial approval. This view would seem to be fully sustained by the authorities cited in the majority opinion, and particularly John Hohenadel Brewing Company v. United States (C. C. A.) 295 F. 489, and Peru and Bird v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 881.