OCTAVIUS SAVAGE v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Raker, Filed Dec. 15, 2015,
Conspiracy – Conviction for conspiracy to commit murder is not legally inconsistent despite conviction on 2nd degree murder and acquittal on first degree murder

(opinion re-issued March 23, 2016)

Conspiracy – There is no crime of conspiracy to commit second degree murder

Merger- Conspiracy – Conspiracy and the primary offense do not merge for sentencing purposes, as each has separate elements

Jury Trial – Inconsistent Verdict – Inconsistent verdicts of guilty under different counts of the same indictment, when both counts depended upon the same alleged acts, cannot stand.

Jury Trial – Inconsistent Verdict – A “factually inconsistent verdict” is one where a jury renders different verdicts on crimes with distinct elements when there was only one set of proof at a given trial, which makes the verdict “merely illogical.”

Jury Trial – Inconsistent Verdict – A “legally inconsistent verdict” occurs where an acquittal on one charge is conclusive as to an element which is necessary to and inherent in a charge on which a conviction has occurred.

The Court states that “the rules are different for factually inconsistent verdicts as opposed
to legally inconsistent verdicts,” but does not overtly set out what that difference is. The CoSA cites to “McNealy v. State” (known to the rest of the world as McNeal v. State), which itself holds that factually inconsistent verdicts “are illogical, but not illegal.”