7 So. 3d 1055 - Hammonds v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “Inconsistency” between verdicts is generally understood to mean some logical impossibility or improbability implicit in the jury’s findings on several indictments or informations tried together or as between several counts of a single criminal accusation without severance of the counts.’ State v. Purdie, 144 Idaho 911 , 174 P.3d 881, 883 (Ct.App.2007). An inconsistent verdict on different counts of a multiple-count indictment is permissible. A jury verdict on each count is independent; a verdict of either conviction or acquittal of one has no effect or bearing on another. A jury’s verdict may be inconsistent or even illogical but nonetheless permissible if it is supported by sufficient evidence. The rationale for allowing inconsistent verdicts is “ ‘(1) there is no way to know why the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict, and therefore such verdicts must be upheld in the interest of protecting lenity; (2) since the government cannot appeal inconsistent acquittals, it would be unfair to allow a defendant to appeal inconsistent convictions; and (3) the requirement of a sufficiency of the evidence review on appeal prevents any harm that could result from an inconsistent verdict.’ “State v. Purdie, 174 P.3d at 884 (citing United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65-69 , 105 S.Ct. 471 (1984) (footnote omitted)). This Court will not disturb guilty verdicts on the basis of apparent inconsistencies so long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. However, mutually ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Murphy v. State · 87 So. 3d 607 - Sheffield v. State

2. ““Heard was found guilty of ’more than one offense based on crimes against one victim. [[Image here]] “Confusion exists throughout Alabama courts over the difference between inconsistent verdicts and mutually exclusive verdicts. ‘The general rule is that there need be no rational compatibility between the verdicts on the several counts of an indictment. The exception to this rule is where the jury returns multiple convictions as to crimes which are mutually exclusive of each other. Conway v. State, 489 So.2d 641, 642 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).... ’ Grikis v. State, 552 So.2d 187, 187 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). This seemingly straightforward rule has been somewhat difficult to apply because of confusion over the meaning of the terms ‘inconsistent verdicts’ and ‘mutually exclusive verdicts.’ [[Image here]] “... [MJutually exclusive verdicts are the result of two positive findings of fact that cannot logically coexist. In other words, it is legally impossible for the State to prove the elements of both crimes. In order to determine whether the guilty verdicts are mutually exclusive as a matter of law, the alleged underlying offenses or acts must be carefully scrutinized. The two guilty verdicts are not mutually exclusive if no element of one crime necessarily negates an element of the other. “Mutually exclusive verdicts exist when a guilty verdict on one count logically excludes a guilty verdict on another count. In contrast, inconsistent verdicts can exist where there is a verdict of guilty a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 So. 3d 607 - Sheffield v. State

3. ““‘Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in the indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment.... That the verdict may have been the result of compromise, or of a mistake on the part of the jury, is possible. But verdicts cannot by upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.’ “Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393-94 , 52 S.Ct. 189 , 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 87 So. 3d 607 - Sheffield v. State