Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
Motions challenging allegedly inconsistent jury verdicts arise frequently in Florida criminal cases, particularly when a jury makes detailed factual findings that appear to conflict with a conviction. Courts must then determine whether the verdict reflects a permissible inconsistency or a legally impermissible contradiction that undermines an essential element of the offense. A recent Florida decision issued in a battery case highlights how narrowly courts define “true inconsistency” and reinforces the principle that not all conflicting findings justify reversal. If you are charged with battery or another violent offense, you should speak with a knowledgeable Tampa violent crime defense attorney to evaluate your options.
History of the Case
Allegedly, the defendant was charged in a Florida circuit court with attempted aggravated battery arising from an incident involving a firearm. The prosecution asserted that the defendant took overt steps toward committing a violent battery using a deadly weapon but failed to complete the act.
Reportedly, during the trial, the State presented evidence that the defendant possessed a firearm and attempted to use it in a manner capable of causing serious bodily harm. The jury heard testimony suggesting that the weapon malfunctioned, preventing it from firing as intended.
It is alleged that after deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of attempted aggravated battery. At the same time, the jury made a specific factual finding that the defendant possessed a firearm during the offense but did not discharge it.
It is reported that the defendant filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial. In his motions, he asserted that the jury’s findings were legally inconsistent. The defendant contended that a conviction for attempted aggravated battery with a firearm could not stand where the jury explicitly found that the firearm was not discharged. The trial court denied both motions.
Reportedly, the defendant appealed the conviction to the Florida District Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in rejecting the inconsistency argument and allowing the verdict to stand.
Standards Governing Inconsistent Verdict Claims
On appeal, the court reviewed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal and the motion for a new trial under established standards governing inconsistent verdict claims. The court began by reaffirming that Florida law generally permits inconsistent jury verdicts. This rule reflects the reality that juries may exercise leniency, compromise, or mistake without necessarily invalidating a conviction.
The court then explained the narrow exception for “true inconsistent verdicts.” Such verdicts arise only when an acquittal on one count contradicts a necessary element required for conviction on another count. In other words, the inconsistency must be legally irreconcilable, not merely factually confusing.
Applying this framework, the court examined the elements of attempted aggravated battery. To sustain a conviction, the State must prove that the defendant intended to commit aggravated battery, took an overt act toward its commission beyond mere preparation, and failed to complete the offense. The offense may be established if the defendant intended to cause great bodily harm or attempted to use a deadly weapon.
The court emphasized that discharge of a firearm is not a required element of attempted aggravated battery. The critical inquiry is whether the defendant attempted to use a deadly weapon to inflict harm. Evidence that a firearm was pointed or manipulated in an effort to cause injury may satisfy this element, even if the weapon does not fire.
In evaluating the jury’s findings, the court determined that there was no legal inconsistency. The jury’s conclusion that the defendant did not discharge the firearm did not negate any element of the offense. The conviction rested on the attempted use of the weapon, not its successful discharge. The evidence indicating that the firearm malfunctioned supported the conclusion that the defendant took substantial steps toward committing the offense but failed to complete it.
Because the defendant raised no additional challenges to the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, the court affirmed the conviction in full.
Meet with a Trusted Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney
If you are charged with battery or another violent offense, it is critical to understand how Florida courts interpret the law, and you should talk to an attorney. The trusted Tampa violent crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law are well-versed in trial defense and can assess whether the evidence and jury findings in your case support a viable challenge. Contact the firm online or call 813-228-7095 to schedule a confidential consultation.