Background

• Charles was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm after a jury trial.
• The jury acquitted him of unlawful possession of ammunition, the only ammunition in evidence being that loaded in the firearm.
• The Appeals Court reversed the ballistics-certificates issue and directed judgment for Charles on the loaded-firearm charge on double-jeopardy/issue-preclusion grounds.
• The Commonwealth sought further appellate review, limited to whether the ammunition acquittal precludes retrial on the loaded-firearm charge.
• The Supreme Judicial Court held that the ammunition acquittal does not preclude retrial on the loaded-firearm charge, distinguishing this case from Johnson.
• Inconsistent verdicts (guilty of a loaded firearm but not guilty of ammunition) do not automatically negate the conviction on the loaded-firearm charge, given proper jury authority and the possibility of factors unrelated to guilt.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Commonwealth v. Johnson, 461 Mass. 44 (Mass. 2011) (ammunition as lesser included offense in loaded firearm context; double jeopardy concerns)
• Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 452 Mass. 142 (Mass. 2008) (mere verdict inconsistency does not render guilty verdict erroneous)
• Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471 (Mass. 1969) (jurors may compromise for factors unrelated to guilt)
• Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 411 Mass. 313 (Mass. 1991) (structural treatment of inconsistent verdicts and reversals)
• Commonwealth v. Cer-veny, 387 Mass. 280 (Mass. 1982) (factors explaining acquittal beyond defendant's guilt)