Consistency of Verdicts
The general rule in Connecticut is that factual consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it were a seperate indictment. State v. Stevens, 178 Conn. 649, 653 (Conn. 1979). Where the verdict could have been the result of compromise or mistake, the court will not probe into the logic or reasoning of the jury's deliberations or open the door to interminable speculation. United States v. Zane, 495 F.2d 683, 690 (2d Cir.).
Our courts will employ a less limited approach, however, whey they are confronted with an argument that the verdicts are inconsistent as a matter of law or when the verdicts are based on a legal impossibility. See State v. Robinson, 213 Conn. 243, 250-251 (Conn. 1989).
In response to such a claim, the courts look carefully to determine whether the existence of the essential elements for one offense negates the existence of the essential elements for another offense of which the Defendant also stands convicted. If that is the case, the verdicts are legally inconsistent and cannot withstand challenge. State v. Hinton, 227 Conn. 301, 314 (Conn. 1993). As always, consult with an attorney who can assess your case on an individual basis.
