Further Update: See Shea Denning's post here about State v. Mumford, in which the court of appeals held that "logically inconsistent and legally contradictory" verdicts cannot stand. It has the potential to expand significantly the circumstances under which inconsistent verdicts are grounds for a new trial. Update: One more type of inconsistent verdict is the situation where the jury is presented with two mutually exclusive offenses and convicts of both -- as in State v. Melvin, where the jury convicted the defendant both of murder and of being an accessory after the fact to the same murder. As the opinion in Melvin indicates, this should be rare, since the jury should be instructed not to convict the defendant of both charges. But when it happens, it may be grounds for a new trial. Original Post: Last month the court of appeals decided State v. Cole -- discussed below in context -- and ever since, I've been meaning to do a post on inconsistent verdicts. The general rule in North Carolina is that inconsistent verdicts are permitted. State v. Reid, 335 N.C. 647 (1994). Although defendants sometimes argue that such verdicts show that the jury was irrational or confused, our appellate courts have held that inconsistent verdicts usually reflect a rational compromise within the jury, or even lenity, i.e., a partial acquittal despite sufficient evidence of guilt. Id. Further, the defendant "is afforded protection against jury irrationality or error by the independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence undertaken by the [...]
Faculty Coordinators
