Commonwealth v. Miller, 35 A.3d 1206

Appellee Antoine Miller murdered Wallace Bivens and stole the victim's vehicle in April 2006.
Miller was charged with multiple offenses including second-degree murder based on a predicate robbery, and acquitted of several counts at trial.
Jury found Miller guilty of second-degree murder, theft by unlawful taking, and fleeing an officer; acquitted of first-degree murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and possessing an instrument of crime.
Superior Court reversed Miller's second-degree murder conviction, vacating his judgment, due to the acquittal on the predicate offense of robbery.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether an acquittal of the predicate offense requires reversal of a felony-murder conviction.
Court held that inconsistent verdicts are permissible if the evidence supports the conviction and did not require a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does acquittal of the predicate offense require reversing a felony murder conviction?	Miller argues acquittal undercuts proof of 'perpetration of a felony' for second-degree murder.	Commonwealth contends inconsistency allowed; predicate not required to be completed for second-degree murder.	No; acquittal of predicate does not compel reversal.
Should Magliocco control this case regarding inconsistent verdicts?	Magliocco requires predicate completion; acquittal bars conviction.	Magliocco is limited to ethnic intimidation; not controlling for second-degree murder.	Magliocco not controlling; rule favors keeping verdict despite inconsistency.
Is a second-degree murder conviction dependent on actual completion of the predicate offense?	Second-degree murder requires 'perpetration of a felony' including completed predicate.	Statutory language allows conviction without requiring completion of the predicate offense.	Conviction valid without predicate completion; not a required element for second-degree murder.
May courts acknowledge inconsistent verdicts without retrying the defendant?	Inconsistencies imply error; remedy may be needed to avoid injustice.	Inconsistent verdicts are not grounds for new trials; avoid delving into deliberations.	Yes; no remand for new trial; reaffirmation of existing conviction.

Commonwealth v. Gravely, 486 Pa. 194 (Pa. 1979) (consistency not required; sufficiency review upheld despite indecision on predicate)
Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 584 Pa. 244 (Pa. 2005) (ethnic intimidation requires underlying offense; special weight given to acquittals)
Commonwealth v. Reed, 607 Pa. 629 (Pa. 2010) (grading depends on underlying offenses; acquittals influence sentencing under §6318)
Commonwealth v. Campbell, 539 Pa. 212 (Pa. 1994) (conspiracy conviction valid despite co-conspirator acquittal; Dunn/Powell rationale cited)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (consistency not required; jury verdicts may be inconsistent yet valid)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (inconsistent verdicts generally not reviewable; government not required to prove consistency)
Commonwealth v. Austin, 906 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Super. Ct. approach to Magliocco’s logic; later disapproved in part)
Marcavage v. Rendell, 936 A.2d 188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (ethnic intimidation statute deemed unconstitutional on procedural grounds)