Richard P. Homrighausen v. Ohio

In United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984), the Court recognized an exception to the general rule that inconsistent verdicts in a criminal case are not subject to review, in cases, “where a defendant is convicted of two crimes, where a guilty verdict on one count logically excludes a finding of guilt on the other.” Id. at 69, n. 8. While citing an example of a case where two separate guilty verdicts were logically inconsistent, the Court did not provide any guidance on how to determine whether a guilty verdict on one count logically excludes a finding of guilt on the other. In addition, the Court specifically reserved the question of what to do in a case presenting logically inconsistent guilty verdicts Id. This case, therefore, presents the following questions: I. Is a criminal defendant denied his constitutional right to due process of law and trial by jury when he is convicted of two crimes, where a guilty verdict on one count logically excludes a finding of guilt on the other, regardless of whether the statutory elements of those crimes are per se mutually exclusive? II. What remedy should a reviewing court apply if it determines that a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to due process of law and trial by jury were violated because the jury returned guilty verdicts that are logically inconsistent?