Parker v. Mooneyham
| Decision Date | 22 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 43707,43707 |
| Parties | PARKER, Warden v. MOONEYHAM. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Dennis R. Dunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Garrison Parker, Warden.
Ronnie D. Mooneyham, Macon, pro se.
Ronnie Deyton Mooneyham was convicted of the murder of Douglas McArthur Archer. Mooneyham's co-defendant, Harold Rogers, with whom he was jointly tried, was found guilty of the voluntary manslaughter of Archer. The evidence at trial showed that Archer was killed by a single bullet, but was in conflict as to whether Mooneyham or Rogers fired the fatal shot. On direct appeal this court found the evidence supporting each verdict sufficient to meet the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and affirmed both convictions. See Mooneyham v. State, 251 Ga. 404, 306 S.E.2d 272 (1983), and Rogers v. State, 251 Ga. 408, 306 S.E.2d 652 (1983).
Mooneyham subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus in Bibb Superior Court contesting, inter alia, 1 the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel for failing to object to the alleged inconsistency of the verdicts. The habeas court found that the verdicts were inconsistent, and agreed with Mooneyham that his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to object to them. The habeas court granted Mooneyham's petition for habeas corpus and ordered the trial court to resentence Mooneyham for the crime of voluntary manslaughter. The State appeals.
Without deciding whether the habeas court correctly concluded that the verdicts in this case are inconsistent, we note that in Milam v. State, 255 Ga. 560, 341 S.E.2d 216 (1986), this court, for the reasons expressed in United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984), abolished the rule which had previously governed inconsistent verdicts in this state. 2
Powell, supra, and Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932), stand for the proposition that a defendant convicted by the jury on one count of an indictment may not attack the conviction on the ground that the verdict is inconsistent with a verdict of acquittal on another count. These cases recognize "the unreviewable power of a jury to return a verdict of not guilty for impermissible reasons." Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 346, 102 S.Ct. 460, 464, 70 L.Ed.2d 530 (1981); Powell, supra, 105 S.Ct. at 476. Thus, the defendant is not granted relief from an inconsistent verdict in these circumstances because " " Dunn, supra, 284 U.S. at 393, 52 S.Ct. at 190. See also, Register v. State, 10 Ga.App. 623, 74 S.E. 429 (1911).
Where inconsistent verdicts are returned, it is clear that either the jury has erroneously failed to follow the instructions of the trial court, or that the jury has exercised leniency in favor of the defendant. But as noted in Powell, in this circumstance it is not clear who profits or loses. The State may not appeal a verdict of acquittal. Likewise, it would be "unworkable [to adopt] a rule that would allow criminal defendants to challenge inconsistent verdicts on the ground that in their case the verdict was not the product of lenity, but of some error that worked against them." Powell, 105 S.Ct. at 478. The defendant will be protected by the appellate court's review of the evidence supporting his conviction, independent of the jury's determination that there was insufficient evidence to support another count under the indictment. Id.
We hold that these principles are equally applicable to a situation where the jury returns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. the State.Walsh v. the State.
...on our review of the appellants' claims because the inconsistent-verdict rule has been abolished in Georgia. See Parker v. Mooneyham, 256 Ga. 334, 335, 349 S.E.2d 182 (1986) (holding that the principles applicable to inconsistent verdicts against one defendant are applicable to inconsistent......
-
People v. Frye, 94SC31
...105 Ill.Dec. 385, 386, 504 N.E.2d 254, 255 review denied, 115 Ill.2d 545, 110 Ill.Dec. 460, 511 N.E.2d 432 (1987); Parker v. Mooneyham, 256 Ga. 334, 349 S.E.2d 182, 184 (1986); Hammers v. State, 502 N.E.2d 1339, 1343 (Ind.1987); State v. Wise, 237 Kan. 117, 697 P.2d 1295, 1299 (1985); Wrigh......
-
State v. Ng
...Cal.Rptr. 433 (1984); Wright v. State, 307 Md. 552, 515 A.2d 1157 (1986); Tilden v. State, 513 A.2d 1302 (Del.1986); Parker v. Mooneyham, 256 Ga. 334, 349 S.E.2d 182 (1986); People v. Spencer, 154 Mich.App. 6, 397 N.W.2d 525 (1986); State v. Czech, 343 N.W.2d 854 (Minn.1984); Hammond v. Sta......
-
Wright v. State
...Milam "are equally applicable to a situation where the jury returns inconsistent verdicts against co-defendants." Parker v. Mooneyham , 256 Ga. 334, 335, 349 S.E.2d 182 (1986). For this reason, [Wright] may not attack [her] conviction on the ground that the jury chose to acquit [her] co-def......