Legal Definitions - legally inconsistent verdict

A legally inconsistent verdict occurs when a jury's decisions on multiple charges or elements within a single case contain contradictory conclusions, making the overall verdict illogical or legally unsound. This typically happens when:

• The jury finds that the same essential fact both exists and does not exist.
• The jury acquits a defendant of one crime but convicts them of a second crime that, by law, absolutely requires the commission of the first crime.

Such a verdict is considered defective because it demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the jury's application of the law to the evidence presented, and it may lead to the verdict being overturned on appeal.

Examples of Legally Inconsistent Verdicts:

• Example 1: Felony Murder and Underlying Felony

  Imagine a defendant is charged with two crimes stemming from the same incident:

  • Felony Murder: A charge where a death occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony (e.g., armed robbery).
  • Armed Robbery: The underlying felony itself.

  If the jury returns a verdict finding the defendant not guilty of Armed Robbery, but simultaneously finds them guilty of Felony Murder, and the prosecution's entire case for felony murder was predicated solely on the alleged armed robbery, this would be a legally inconsistent verdict. For a felony murder conviction to stand, the prosecution must prove that an underlying felony (in this case, armed robbery) was committed. By acquitting the defendant of armed robbery, the jury has legally negated the essential foundation for the felony murder charge, creating a direct contradiction.

• Example 2: Grand Theft Auto and Receiving Stolen Property

  Consider a case where a defendant is accused of:

  • Grand Theft Auto: Unlawfully taking a motor vehicle belonging to another.
  • Receiving Stolen Property: Knowingly possessing property that was stolen by someone else.

  If the jury finds the defendant guilty of Grand Theft Auto (meaning they stole the car themselves) but also finds them not guilty of Receiving Stolen Property, where the only stolen property the defendant was accused of receiving was the very same car they were convicted of stealing, this verdict is legally inconsistent. A person cannot "receive stolen property" from themselves. If the jury concluded the defendant was the thief, they cannot simultaneously be found not guilty of receiving that same stolen car, especially if the receiving charge implies it was stolen by another party. This verdict contains contradictory findings about the defendant's role concerning the same piece of property.