Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Kansas Defenders

Public Defense

: Kansas Defenders

Inconsistent verdicts?

I noted that the Maryland Court of Appeals recently abandoned its long-standing common law precedent allowing inconsistent verdicts in criminal cases. In Price v. State, the Maryland high court acknowledged that many other jurisdictions permit such verdicts and that it had long allowed such verdicts. But it also noted that it had narrowed the acceptance somewhat over the years, for example, by disallowing inconsistent verdicts in bench trials. The Maryland court also relied heavily on the fact that it had disallowed inconsistent verdicts in civil cases:

As previously pointed out, this Court emphasized that ?the consistency requirements in criminal cases? should not ?be less stringent than the standards we have applied in civil cases,? and that we are ?unwilling to afford less protection to the jury trial rights of a criminal defendant, whose very liberty, or even his or her life, is at stake, than to a civil litigant, where, generally, it is money that is at stake.? To uphold, in the present case, the inconsistent jury verdict of guilty on the count charging possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, would be to repudiate the principles recently set forth.

So, what difference does this make in Kansas? None, maybe. I recognize that as recently as 2007, the KSC has reiterated its long standing rule tolerating inconsistent verdicts. See here. Well, like Maryland, Kansas also prohibits inconsistent verdicts in civil cases. See McDonnell v. Music Stand, Inc., 20 Kan. App. 2d 287, 886 P.2d 895 (1994). And Kansas courts have prohibited inconsistent verdicts in bench trials, see State v. Meyer, 17 Kan. App. 2d 59, 832 P.2d 357 (1992), and have reduced charges based on an acquittal in one count that would be inconsistent with the sole aggravating fact in another count, see State v. Davis, 275 Kan. 107, 61 P.3d 701 (2003). Many of the reasons that persuaded the Maryland high court would apply here. And as the Maryland high court expressed, the rule allowing inconsistent verdicts is hardly universal.

Mainly, this is just an example of a trial attorney that, even in the face of long-standing precedent, made an objection anyway. I know that my knee-jerk reaction to an inconsistent verdict would be "So what? That's okay under Kansas law!" But Price's attorney didn't say "So what?" and it made all the difference. Challenges like this are quite difficult when brought for the first time on appeal. So, if you have a weird felony murder case or some other case that results in verdicts that cannot be reconciled, go ahead and move for dismissal! And how many other "long-standing" rules need to be revisited? Any suggestions?

Full post as published by Kansas Defenders on July 07, 2008 (boomark / email).