Extending the Inconsistent Verdicts Doctrine to Special Interrogatories

Introduction

In Commonwealth v. Muhammad, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether the familiar “inconsistent verdicts” doctrine applies when a jury’s general verdict of guilt conflicts with a jury’s answer to a special interrogatory. The appellant, Rasheed Muhammad, was tried in Delaware County for two firearms offenses—carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. § 6106) and persons not to possess a firearm (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105)—along with forgery, conspiracy, and resisting arrest. To shield the jury from evidence of his prior conviction, the trial court presented “possession of a firearm” on the verdict slip as a special interrogatory rather than as a formal count. When the jury found Muhammad “guilty” of carrying without a license but answered “no” to the possession question, the trial court acquitted him on the persons-not-to-possess charge. The Superior Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court accepted review to resolve how—and whether—to apply the inconsistent verdicts doctrine under these circumstances.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Wecht’s concurring and dissenting opinion holds that:

A criminal jury may return internally inconsistent verdicts (or a verdict plus a conflicting special interrogatory), and such inconsistencies are not a basis for upsetting the conviction.
When a general guilty verdict conflicts with a special interrogatory, the proper remedy is a sufficiency‐of‐the‐evidence review of the conviction—not vacatur of the conviction or retrial.
The trial process here—submitting possession as a special interrogatory—did not transform the jury’s “no” answer into a binding acquittal that can undermine the separate conviction under § 6106.
Magliocco, the 2005 case that purported to carve out an exception when one charged offense is a statutory predicate for another, was wrongly decided and is overruled.
The Superior Court correctly affirmed Muhammad’s conviction for carrying a firearm without a license, because the evidence of possession and control of the weapon, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to sustain that conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Commonwealth v. Carter (Pa. 1971) and United States v. Powell (U.S. 1984): Established that an acquittal on one count—even if inconsistent with a conviction on another—cannot be read as a factual finding and that challenges to the conviction must proceed via sufficiency review.
Commonwealth v. Miller (Pa. 2012): Reaffirmed that inconsistent verdicts are not grounds to set aside a conviction, and that a sufficiency challenge must be independent of any acquittal.
Commonwealth v. Peters (Pa. 2019) and Commonwealth v. Townsend (Pa. 1968): Interpreted “carry” under § 6106 to require either actual or constructive possession, and defined constructive possession as involving power and intent to control the firearm.
Commonwealth v. Magliocco (Pa. 2005): Held that an acquittal on a predicate offense could invalidate a conviction on a compound offense—a decision Justice Wecht now overrules as incompatible with the inconsistent verdicts doctrine.

Legal Reasoning

1. Inconsistent Verdicts Doctrine
The Court reconfirmed that criminal juries may, through mistake, compromise, or lenity, return verdicts that defy logical consistency. To probe the jury’s motive or factual basis would intrude upon the jury’s exclusive deliberative function.

2. Special Interrogatory vs. Verdict
Although Pennsylvania practice permits special interrogatories in civil cases, they are disfavored in criminal trials. Here the possession question did not itself yield a verdict but served as a factual inquiry that the trial court used to enter an acquittal on § 6105. The Court treats that inquiry, for inconsistent-verdicts purposes, as analogous to a jury verdict.

3. Sufficiency Review
When faced with conflicting jury findings—whether two verdicts or a verdict plus an interrogatory—the only permissible judicial response is to leave the inconsistency intact and test the conviction’s validity by reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

4. Overruling Magliocco
Magliocco’s dicta, creating an exception when one charged offense incorporates another as an element, undermines the inconsistent verdicts doctrine by treating an acquittal as a specific factual finding. The Court now overrules Magliocco to restore uniform application of the doctrine in compound-offense cases.

Impact

Affirms that Pennsylvania courts will not disturb convictions on logically inconsistent grounds between a general verdict and a special interrogatory.
Clarity for trial courts: Special interrogatories cannot be used as a back-door method to secure acquittals when the jury’s general verdict is guilty.
Reassurance for prosecutors and defendants: Challenges to convictions must focus on sufficiency of evidence, rather than attacking procedural oddities or alleged logical defects in the jury’s decision.
Overruling Magliocco eliminates an anomalous exception and solidifies the doctrine’s consistency across all offenses, including compound crimes with statutory predicates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inconsistent Verdicts Doctrine: Even if a jury convicts on one count and acquits on another (or answers “no” to a factual question supporting the first count), courts will not vacate the conviction. Instead, they test whether the remaining conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.
Special Interrogatory vs. Special Verdict: A special interrogatory asks the jury a specific factual question in addition to its general verdict; a special verdict asks only those facts and leaves the legal outcome to the judge. Criminal defendants are entitled to have juries decide verdicts, not just facts.
Constructive Possession: A legal doctrine holding that a person may be deemed to “possess” an item (like a gun) if they have the power and intent to control it, even if they do not hold it physically.
Magliocco Exception: A now-overruled rule that said an acquittal on a statutory predicate offense prevents conviction on a related compound offense. The Court has rejected this exception as contrary to the inconsistent verdicts doctrine.

Conclusion

Commonwealth v. Muhammad reaffirms that a criminal jury’s general verdict cannot be undone by an inconsistent special interrogatory. When the two conflict, Pennsylvania courts will preserve both outcomes and assess the conviction through a standard sufficiency-of-the-evidence review. Trial judges should avoid submitting special interrogatories that risk confusing jurors or infringing on the jury’s ultimate role in determining guilt. By overruling Magliocco, the Court ensures uniform application of the inconsistent verdicts doctrine across all criminal offenses, safeguarding both the jury’s deliberative function and the integrity of verdicts in the Commonwealth.