DOMINIC GIVENS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Watts, August 24, 2016,
Inconsistent Verdicts – To preserve an issue of inconsistent jury verdicts, a defendant must object before the verdicts become final and the trial court discharges the jury.

(Dissent – Greene join by Adkins, Battaglia – Court should review under plain error; judge should be able to send back verdict as illegal)

While legally inconsistent verdicts are not acceptable in either a judge or a jury trial, factually inconsistent verdicts may be acceptable in a criminal case with a jury.

Citing McNeal v. State:

[L]egally inconsistent verdict[s are] one[s] where the jury acts contrary to the instructions of the trial [court] with regard to the proper application of the law. Verdicts where a defendant is convicted of one charge, but acquitted of another charge that is an essential element of the first charge, are inconsistent as a matter of law. Factually inconsistent verdicts are those where the charges have common facts but distinct legal elements[,] and a jury acquits a defendant of one charge, but convicts him or her on another charge. The latter verdicts are illogical, but not illegal.

What to do in the event of a timely objection?
“Where a jury reaches legally inconsistent verdicts, and the verdicts are not final and the jury has not been discharged, a trial court may correct the error in the proceedings by sending the jury back to deliberate to resolve the inconsistency.”

However, only the defendant is allowed to object (“The choice of whether to object to inconsistent verdicts belongs to the defendant alone.”)

The Court was quick to hone in on a key issue before them, however:

The transcript does not reveal whether the parties consented to the jury’s receiving lunch before announcing the verdicts. Nor does the transcript reveal whether the jury received lunch in the jury room, or was dismissed for lunch.