Iowa courts follow the United States Supreme Court rule regarding inconsistent verdicts which holds that a criminal defendant "may not challenge a conviction on one count of a multiple count indictment solely because it may be inconsistent with an acquittal by the jury on another count." State v. Hernandez, 538 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citing Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S. Ct. 189, 190, 76 L. Ed. 356, 359 (1932)). "[I]nconsistent verdicts on multiple counts in the same trial do not ordinarily taint the validity of a verdict of guilt." State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100 (Iowa 2004) (citing State v. Pearson, 547 N.W.2d 236, 241 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) ). "Such inconsistencies may result from the jury's exercise of its power of leniency." Id. at 101. The jury may just have been reluctant to "pile-on."
However, an inconsistent verdict may be reviewed if it is "so logically and legally inconsistent as to be irreconcilable within the context of the case." State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d at 101. For example, "[t]he rule dispensing with the necessity of consistency does not necessarily apply where there are multiple convictions, without an acquittal, of mutually exclusive offenses." State v. Pearson, 547 N.W.2d at 241 (citing United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 69 n.8, 105 S. Ct. 471, 479 n.8, 83 L. Ed. 2d 461, 471 n.8 (1984)).
For subscription based briefing and sample instructions on this and related issues see:
Forecite National™
297.6 - Inconsistent Verdicts
Forecite California™
PG X(H) - Inconsistent Verdicts
F 3515.1 Note 1 - Multiple Counts: Inconsistent Verdicts
