DocketNumber: No. 06AP-1273.
Citation Numbers: 2007 Ohio 5659
Judges: BRYANT, J.
Filed Date: 10/23/2007
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} By complaints filed October 28, 2006, defendant was charged with one count of aggravated menacing and one count of criminal trespass. Defendant's charges were tried to a jury. Following the close of evidence and the parties' closing arguments, *Page 2 the trial judge instructed the jury on not only criminal trespass and aggravated menacing, but also the lesser-included offense of menacing. After deliberating, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on both criminal trespass and aggravated menacing, but returned a not guilty verdict on menacing.
{¶ 3} When the jury returned the verdicts, the trial judge asked the foreperson of the jury why the verdict form for menacing was signed not guilty. The foreperson replied, "We just thought that was the process." (Nov. 22, 2006 Tr. 153.) The trial court continued, asking the foreperson, "Do you find the defendant, and was it the verdict of your jury members, that you found him guilty of aggravated menacing?" Id. When the foreperson replied affirmatively, the trial court stated, "So perhaps you didn't understand the instruction, that if you find him guilty of aggravated menacing, you did not need to go to menacing at all." Id. at 154. Again receiving an affirmative response, the trial court inquired, "Would that be correct, that was a matter of confusion?" Id. The foreperson advised that the court was correct. As a result of its inquiry, the trial court sentenced defendant on the criminal trespass and aggravated menacing charges. Defendant appeals, assigning two errors:
*Page 3First Assignment of Error
The trial court committed reversible error by denying Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court committed reversible error by denying Appellant's motion for a new trial.
{¶ 5} In State v. Deem (1988),
{¶ 6} Ordinarily, the inability to rationally reconcile inconsistent verdicts to different counts or charges is insufficient ground on which to overturn an otherwise valid conviction. State v. Tanner (Dec. 31, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-263. Likewise, if menacing and aggravated menacing were classified as predicate and compound offenses and charged as separate counts, acquittal on menacing would not justify setting aside the *Page 4
conviction on the aggravated menacing. United States v. Powell (1984),
{¶ 7} Defendant's appeal is different than the typical inconsistent verdict case because the inconsistent responses here arise from the same count. Inconsistent responses to different counts of an indictment do not create an inconsistent verdict, but an inconsistent verdict arises out of inconsistent responses to the same count. State v. Brown (1984),
{¶ 8} Bosley is predicated upon a long line of cases dating back toBrowning v. State (1929),
{¶ 9} We recognize the pronouncement in Browning regarding inconsistent responses to a single count is dicta, but the Supreme Court consistently has restated the proposition. See State v. McNicol (1944),
{¶ 10} Given its consistent and widespread recitation, we administerBrowning, as Bosley did, and conclude the inconsistent responses to aggravated menacing and to menacing in the same count constitute an inconsistent verdict which means the jury's verdict on that count should be set aside. See State v. Horton, Franklin App. 06AP-311,
{¶ 11} The state urges defendant's case is unusual because the trial court addressed the inconsistency in the jury's verdict on the record in an effort designed to discern the jury's intent to convict. If the court's inquiry be proper, then the issue of inconsistent verdicts may be resolved, as the judge's questioning led the jury foreperson to explain that the jury did not intend to acquit on the menacing charge, but so indicated on the completed verdict form only because it misunderstood the process.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, resolution of defendant's first assignment of error requires that we determine whether the trial court properly could inquire of the jury concerning its verdict. While the trial court's attempt appears reasonable at first blush, it is fraught with *Page 6 such serious ramifications that we are compelled to conclude the trial court wrongly attempted to rehabilitate the jury's inconsistent verdict.
{¶ 13} "By the beginning of this century, if not earlier, the near-universal and firmly established common-law rule in the United States flatly prohibited the admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict. See 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence §
{¶ 14} Thus, "[i]n general, ``we do not permit jurors to impeach their own verdicts.' United States v. Lloyd,
{¶ 15} Because nothing suggests outside influence on the jury led to the verdict here, the trial court was not free to accept the foreperson's representation that the guilty *Page 7
verdict on the menacing charge was the result of jury confusion or misunderstanding. Instead, when faced with facts like those here, the trial court's "remedy" is to return the matter to the jury for further deliberations. For example, when jurors in City of Cleveland v.Walters (1994),
{¶ 16} The rationale for limiting intrusion on the jury's deliberations is sound, as evidenced in defendant's case. Although the trial court attempted to neutrally present the matter to the foreperson, the questions were suggestive of the answer the court expected to receive. As a result, the questions and answers are problematic to our ascertaining whether the foreperson responded with an accurate account of the jury's intent or instead agreed with the judge and the position of authority the judge occupied in the courtroom. *Page 8
{¶ 17} Moreover, questioning like that conducted in this case naturally prompts a defendant, though not defendant here, to seek to follow up on the court's questions to determine that the court's inquiry adequately explored the inconsistent verdicts. Such interrogation flies in the face of long-standing principles that protect the jury from revealing the nature of its deliberations. See Hardy v. Osborn (1988),
{¶ 18} Because in its inquiry into the validity of the jury's verdict the trial court elicited information concerning the juror's misunderstanding or confusion about the court's instructions to the jury, the court erred. Because the court's inquiry, though well-intentioned, was improper, the verdict must be reversed underBrowning and its progeny. Accordingly, defendant's first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 20} Having sustained defendant's first assignment of error, rendering his second assignment of error moot, we reverse the aggravated menacing conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
*Page 1BROWN and TYACK, JJ., concur.