¶1concurring with separate opinion.
¶2I fully concur with the majority's analysis in Part 1 and most of its analysis in Part 2. However, I do not embrace the concept of reviewing inconsistent verdicts, where, as here and in United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984), the defendant has been acquitted by at least one of the allegedly inconsistent verdicts. I am of this view especially given that in Indiana jurors have the right to determine the law and the facts. A jury's verdict to acquit may be based upon any number of reasons, including lack of proof, leniency and nullification. I am mindful that unless the Indiana Supreme Court chooses to eliminate the review of inconsistent verdicts, we are bound to make such a review. I would urge the Supreme Court to adopt the position announced in Powell, 469 U.S. at 68-69, 105 S.Ct. 471, wherein the United States Supreme Court abandoned the review of inconsistent verdicts altogether in cases where the allegedly inconsistent ver-diets included at least one acquittal. In all other respects, I concur with my colleagues.