Beattie v. State Of Ind.

• Decision Date: 08 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 82S01-0907-CR-307.,82S01-0907-CR-307.
• Citation: 924 N.E.2d 643
• Parties: Shewanda BEATTIE, Appellant (Defendant below),v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

924 N.E.2d 643

Shewanda BEATTIE, Appellant (Defendant below),v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 82S01-0907-CR-307.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 8, 2010.

Matthew Jon McGovern, Evansville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 82A01-0805-CR-247

DICKSON, Justice.

When a jury returns logically inconsistent verdicts in the same case, must Indiana courts accept the inconsistency as insulated from judicial review, or are such verdicts subject to review and, if so, on what basis? To address variations in Indiana case law on this issue, we granted transfer. Adhering to the historically prevailing rule of Indiana jurisprudence and of the United States Supreme Court, holding that inconsistent verdicts are permissible and not subject to appellate review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

During the defendant's jury trial on charges of Dealing in Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine Within 1,000 Feet of a Family Housing Complex, and Possession of Marijuana, the jury was also instructed on and provided a verdict form for Possession of Cocaine as a lesser-included offense of Dealing in Cocaine. The jury returned verdicts finding the defendant not guilty of both Dealing in Cocaine and Possession of Cocaine, but guilty of Possession of Cocaine Within 1,000 Feet of a Family Housing Complex and Possession of Marijuana. The defendant appealed, presenting two claims: (1) irreconcilable verdicts and (2) erroneous admission of evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search and seizure. Rejecting the defendant's assertion of an improper search and a resulting error in admission of evidence, the Court of Appeals nevertheless reversed because “the inconsistency in the jury's verdicts leaves us unable to determine what evidence the jury believed.” Beattie v. State, 903 N.E.2d 1050, 1057 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). We granted transfer to address the appellate review of claims of inconsistent verdicts. As to the claim of evidentiary error, we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

The defendant seeks appellate acquittal or new trial on her conviction of Possession of Cocaine Within 1,000 Feet of a Family Housing Complex, arguing that such conviction is fatally inconsistent with her acquittal on the charge of possession of the same cocaine. In support of her argument, she asserts that Indiana appellate courts review verdicts for consistency and will take corrective action when verdicts are extremely contradictory, which she alleges applies in this case.

The State principally responds that the past approach in several Indiana appellate cases reviewing claims of inconsistent verdicts has been eroded by new developments in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that irreconcilable verdicts do not require appellate relief. The State argues that “merely because the jury chose not to enter two guilty verdicts for the same conduct of possessing cocaine does not require that the count on which the jury did enter a finding of guilt be reversed.” Appellee's Br. at 10.

Federal jurisprudence on this issue derives primarily from two cases Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932), and United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984), which addressed conflicting post- Dunn cases. In Dunn, the jury acquitted the defendant upon charges of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor but convicted him of maintaining a common nuisance by keeping intoxicating liquor for sale at a specified place. In the last opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and delivered on the day of his retirement, the Supreme Court affirmed, stating: “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 be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.” Dunn, 284 U.S. at 394, 52 S.Ct. at 191, 76 L.Ed. at 359. After the Dunn decision, some courts concluded that the holding prohibited the review of verdicts for consistency.¹ Other courts determined that Dunn created the “permissible inconsistent verdict rule” to which certain limited exceptions could be made.²

Almost fifty-three years later, the Court in Powell described Dunn as holding that “a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count could not attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jury's verdict of acquittal on another count.” Powell, 469 U.S. at 58, 105 S.Ct. at 473, 83 L.Ed.2d at 464. Acknowledging that inconsistent verdicts “present a situation where ‘error,’ in the sense that the jury has not followed the court's instructions, most certainly has occurred,” the Court in Powell rejected as “hardly satisfactory” a policy of granting the defendant a new trial on the conviction in such situations. Id. at 65, 105 S.Ct. at 477, 83 L.Ed.2d at 468-69. After reviewing interpretations and applications of Dunn in several other cases, the unanimous Powell Court strongly reaffirmed the rule in Dunn, insulating inconsistent jury verdicts from review.³ It also emphasized that criminal defendants are already afforded protection against jury irrationality or error by the availability of an independent review for sufficiency of evidence. The Dunn rule was also followed in Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 25, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 2009, 64 L.Ed.2d 689, 701 (1980) (“While symmetry of results may be intellectually satisfying, it is not required.”). It should be noted, however, that the Court in Powell grounded its decision on its “supervisory powers over the federal criminal process” and held that “nothing in the Constitution” would require the Dunn rule against reviewing inconsistent verdicts. Powell, 469 U.S. at 65, 105 S.Ct. at 477, 83 L.Ed.2d at 469. Thus, states are not constitutionally precluded from formulating a different rule.

Almost from the time of our state's founding, Indiana courts have overwhelmingly refused to interfere with jury verdicts alleged to be inconsistent or irreconcilable. In Morris v. State, 1 Blackf. 37 (Ind.1819), this Court held: “[I]t cannot be supposed, that where there are two charges in an indictment, that an acquittal as to one can possibly vitiate the verdict of guilty as to the other.” Id. at 37. Similarly, in Flowers v. State, 221 Ind. 448, 48 N.E.2d 56 (1943), this Court rejected a claim of fatal inconsistency, quoting with agreement from Dunn that “[c]onsistency in the verdict is not necessary” and “[t]hat the verdict may have been the result of a compromise, or of a mistake on the part of the jury, is possible. But verdicts cannot be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.” Id. at 450, 48 N.E.2d at 57 (quoting Dunn, 284 U.S. at 393-94, 52 S.Ct. at 190-91, 76 L.Ed. at 358-59). See also Sichick v. State, 89 Ind.App. 132, 166 N.E. 14 (1929) trans. not sought. This refusal to consider claims of logically inconsistent verdicts has been the predominant thrust in almost all of the approximately eighty-six Indiana appellate decisions addressing this issue.

An abrupt deviation from this line of authority, however, occurred in Marsh v. State, 271 Ind. 454, 393 N.E.2d 757 (1979), in which the defendant claimed unlawfully inconsistent verdicts of guilty of voluntary manslaughter and not guilty by reason of insanity of assault and battery with intent to kill. Acknowledging that Flowers had not been overruled, the Marsh Court nevertheless surveyed several federal and state cases that questioned Dunn and then declared:

We therefore conclude that the better, and de facto, rule is not a narrow interpretation of Dunn v. United States, supra. Rather this Court has looked and will continue to look at verdicts to determine if they are inconsistent. While perfectly logical verdicts should not be demanded, extremely contradictory and irreconcilable verdicts warrant corrective action by this Court.

Id. at 460, 393 N.E.2d at 761. In reaching this position, the Court acknowledged that it had “never [ ] reversed a case on the basis of inconsistent verdicts” but had previously “evinced concern over the possibility of inconsistent verdicts.” Id. (citing Pulliam v. State, 264 Ind. 381, 345 N.E.2d 229 (1976); Livingston v. State, 257 Ind. 620, 277 N.E.2d 363 (1972); Buckner v. State, 252 Ind. 379, 248 N.E.2d 348 (1969); Evans v. State, 224 Ind. 428, 68 N.E.2d 546 (1946)). While articulating the possibility of corrective action for inconsistent verdicts, the Court affirmed the conviction, ultimately concluding that the verdicts were not logically inconsistent because the trial testimony provided “a line of reasoning which the jury could have adopted in reaching the two verdicts in this case.” Marsh, 271 Ind. at 462, 393 N.E.2d at 762.

But in the thirty years since Marsh suggested that verdict correction might be possible for “extremely contradictory and irreconcilable verdicts,” this approach has for the most part been either ignored or not applied. Numerous cases have continued to hold that logically inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible and have omitted any consideration or application of the “extremely contradictory and irreconcilable verdicts” evaluation criteria expressed in Marsh. See, e.g. Peck v. State, 563 N.E.2d 554 (Ind.1990); Dorsey v. State, 490 N.E.2d 260 (Ind.1986); Totten v. State, 486 N.E.2d 519 (Ind.1985); James v. State, 472 N.E.2d 195 (Ind.1985); Douglas v. State, 441 N.E.2d 957 (Ind.1982); Easley v. State, 427 N.E.2d 435 (Ind.1981); Tillman v. State, 426 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind.1981); Hicks v. State, 426 N.E.2d 411 (Ind.1981); Woodrum v. State, 498 N.E.2d 1318 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) trans. not sought; Brinker v. State, 491 N.E.2d 223 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), trans. not sought.

Other Indiana cases have mentioned the Marsh approach but have declined...