900 S.E.2d 159
Va. Ct. App.2024Background
- Arturo Barnes was involved in a shootout in a strip mall parking lot, exchanging gunfire with Tyriek Powell—a feud involving Barnes’s brother.
- During the shootout, Barnes fired at Powell and struck him, but three of Barnes’s bullets hit two occupied stores, damaging property.
- Powell died from his wounds, and Barnes was taken to the hospital, where he initially denied shooting Powell but later claimed self-defense.
- Barnes was charged with second-degree murder, use of a firearm in commission of murder, malicious shooting into an occupied building, and intentional property destruction.
- The jury acquitted Barnes of murder-related charges but convicted him of the lesser-included offenses of unlawfully shooting into an occupied building and unlawful destruction of property.
- Barnes moved to set aside the convictions due to alleged inconsistency in the verdicts; the trial court denied the motion, and Barnes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent jury verdicts require reversal | Barnes: The guilty verdicts for property crimes are inherently inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts for murder, implying actual irregularity. | Commonwealth: Consistency in jury verdicts is not required; the evidence supports the jury's verdicts. | Inconsistent jury verdicts are permitted as long as the evidence supports the convictions; no actual irregularity exists. |
| Whether assignment of error must address the trial court’s ruling | Barnes: Assigned error to the jury’s findings. | Commonwealth: Assignments of error must address trial court rulings per appellate procedure rules. | Assignment of error not compliant; thus, the first assigned error is waived. |
| Whether an "actual irregularity" exception applies to jury verdicts | Barnes: An "actual irregularity" exists when there is an inconsistency in verdicts. | Commonwealth: The “actual irregularity” doctrine applies to bench trials, not to jury verdicts; mere inconsistency is insufficient. | The “actual irregularity” doctrine does not apply to jury verdicts; mere inconsistency is not reversible error. |
| Whether evidence supports the challenged verdicts | Barnes: Argued the convictions could not stand due to the implicit self-defense finding. | Commonwealth: Sufficient evidence existed for property and building offenses. | The evidence supported the convictions for unlawfully shooting into occupied buildings and property destruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akers v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 521 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (explains when inconsistent verdicts may be reviewed and distinguishes bench and jury trial standards)
- Gaines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 562 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (establishes that consistency of jury verdicts is not required in Virginia)
- McQuinn v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 456 (Va. 2020) (rejects exceptions to the rule against inquiry into jury verdict inconsistencies)
- Ellis v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 499 (Va. 2011) (establishes objective standard for criminal negligence in shooting into an occupied building)
- Bryant v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 302 (Va. 2018) (defines "unlawfully" as criminal negligence in various statutes)