Preview:

Daniel A. McNeal v. State of Maryland, No. 94, September Term, 2011 CRIMINAL LAW - FACTUALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICTS - Jury verdicts in criminal trials that are factually inconsistent or illogical, rather than legally inconsistent, are permitted.

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 108304013

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 94 September Term, 2011

DANIEL A. McNEAL v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Bell, C.J., Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins Barbera McDonald, JJ.

Opinion by Harrell, J.

Filed: May 21, 2012

This case beckons us to examine our opinion in Price v. State, 405 Md. 10, 949 A.2d 619 (2008), in which we broke with the majority of jurisdictions nationwide and our own jurisprudence to conclude clearly that legally inconsistent jury verdicts in criminal cases were prohibited henceforth in Maryland. The concurring opinion in Price went to some lengths to explain that the scope of the Court's opinion should be read to extend only to legally inconsistent jury verdicts, but not to factually inconsistent jury verdicts. 405 Md. at 35, 949 A.2d at 634 (Harrell, J., concurring). A legally inconsistent verdict is one where the jury acts contrary to the instructions of the trial judge with regard to the proper application of the law. Id. 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.1 Id. 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.2 Id. The latter verdicts are illogical, but not illegal. Id. Petitioner, Daniel A. McNeal, was convicted by a jury of possessing a handgun after

Expressed another way, legally inconsistent verdicts are those where a defendant is acquitted of a "lesser included" crime embraced within a conviction for a greater offense. We note here the State's complaint that our description in Price of "factually inconsistent" verdicts is a speculative term of art. The State would have us recant and substitute "confusing" as a more apt phrase. We agree with the basis for this argument, that a court usually cannot understand what formed exactly the basis for an illogical verdict; however, we shall continue to use the term "factually inconsistent" to describe these "illogical" or "curious" jury verdicts in order to maintain consistency between our earlier jurisprudence on this topic and other states that have taken the minority position on this issue. This will facilitate searching the keyword-driven electronic legal research databases.
2

1

conviction of a disqualifying crime but, in the same trial, acquitted of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun. McNeal urges that the Court's opinion in Price prohibits these factually inconsistent jury verdicts. Rather, we adopt as our holding here the thrust of the concurring opinion in Price, that jury verdicts which are illogical or factually inconsistent are permitted in criminal trials for reasons we shall explain. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On 15 October 2008, McNeal was standing on a sidewalk in the 100 block of Poplar Grove Street, in the City of Baltimore, when four police officers approached him.3 Officer Gold, after observing what he believed to be suspicious behavior by McNeal, asked McNeal if he had "anything he shouldn't have" (i.e., guns, knives, or drugs). McNeal responded forthrightly that he had a gun in his left front pants pocket. Officer Gold removed from McNeal's pocket a 0.9 millimeter Luger, with nine live rounds of ammunition in the magazine. Officer Allen told him that he was under arrest and attempted to place him in handcuffs. McNeal pulled away and ran down Poplar Grove Street. Sergeant Carterbea chased McNeal and used a Taser in an attempt to detain him. McNeal recovered quickly from the "tasing" and resumed the foot race. The officers chased him into a nearby alley, where he was apprehended finally. McNeal was charged with: 1) unlawful possession of a regulated firearm in violation

At trial, there was conflicting testimony as to whether McNeal was walking or standing and whether he was alone or accompanied by other men at the time. -2-

3

of Maryland Code (2003, 2008 Supp.) Public Safety Article,

Download McNeal v. State.pdf

Maryland Law