Nicholas Jabbar Williams v. State of Maryland, No. 37, September Term, 2021 ALLEGED LEGAL OR FACTUAL INCONSISTENCIES IN VERDICTS – NO- IMPEACHMENT RULE – MARYLAND RULE 5-606(b) – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – Court of Appeals held that guilty verdict as to second-degree murder was not legally inconsistent with not-guilty verdicts as to first-degree assault and use of firearm in commission of crime of violence (second-degree murder) because neither offense of which defendant was acquitted is lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. In determining whether verdicts were legally inconsistent, Court considered jury instructions given by trial court and elements of offenses. Court declined to overrule McNeal v. State, 426 Md. 455, 461-62, 44 A.3d 982, 986 (2012), in which it concluded that factually inconsistent verdicts are permissible in criminal jury trials. In addition, Court of Appeals held that trial court did not err in granting motion to strike information obtained from jurors after verdict concerning jury’s deliberations, including affidavit from one juror, and did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial. Court concluded that jurors’ statements were barred from receipt by trial court under no- impeachment rule and Maryland Rule 5-606(b), which provide that trial court may not inquire into validity of jury’s verdict based on information about jury’s deliberations obtained from jurors after verdict has been taken. Court of Appeals also held that evidence was sufficient to support convictions for second- degree murder and possession of regulated firearm while under age of twenty-one. Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CR-18-000005 Argued: February 7, 2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 37 September Term, 2021 ______________________________________ NICHOLAS JABBAR WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________ Getty, C.J. *McDonald Watts Hotten Booth Biran Wilner, Alan M. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. McDonald and Booth, JJ., concur. ______________________________________ Filed: March 25, 2022 *McDonald, J., now a Senior Judge, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act an active member of this Court. After being (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. recalled pursuant to Md. Const., Art. IV, § 3A, 2022-03-25 he also participated in the decision and adoption 15:13-04:00 of this opinion. Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk Maryland case law establishes that verdicts can be inconsistent in two ways— legally and factually. In a criminal case, verdicts are legally inconsistent where a defendant is convicted of an offense but acquitted of another offense that has the same elements as the offense of which the defendant was convicted. See McNeal v. State, 426 Md. 455, 458, 44 A.3d 982, 984 (2012). In other words, verdicts are legally inconsistent “where a defendant is acquitted of a ‘lesser included’ crime embraced within a conviction for a greater offense.” Id. at 458 n.1, 44 A.3d at 984 n.1. Legally inconsistent verdicts are impermissible in criminal trials. See id. at 458, 470, 44 A.3d at 984, 991. In a criminal jury trial, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals