Givens v. State, 144 A.3d 717

Dominic Givens was tried by jury on multiple counts arising from a 2011 robbery/shooting; jury convicted him of first‑degree felony murder and multiple conspiracy counts but acquitted him of robbery and attempted robbery counts that could have been predicate felonies for felony murder.
After the jury announced its verdicts, the jury was polled, hearkened, and discharged; about an hour later Givens filed a motion to strike the felony‑murder conviction as legally inconsistent with the acquittals.
The trial court denied the motion; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding Givens waived the issue by failing to object before the jury was discharged.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether a defendant must object before the jury is discharged to preserve a challenge to legally inconsistent jury verdicts.
The Court held that, to preserve a claim of legally inconsistent jury verdicts for appellate review, the defendant must object or otherwise make known opposition before the verdicts become final and the jury is discharged, adopting Part C of Judge Harrell’s concurrence in Price.

Issue	Givens' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant waives a claim of legally inconsistent jury verdicts by failing to object before the jury is discharged	Givens: Price permitted post‑discharge challenge; no waiver required	State: Price did not address waiver; defendant must object before discharge	Court: Defendant must object before verdicts are final/discharge to preserve claim; failure waives issue
Whether Price required or addressed preservation procedure for inconsistent verdicts	Givens: Price’s reversal shows preservation not required	State: Price did not decide preservation; only addressed merits	Court: Price did not address waiver; concurrence (Harrell, J.) supplied preservation rule, which Court adopts
Whether legally inconsistent guilty verdicts may be corrected by recalling the jury after discharge	Givens: post‑discharge relief possible	State: trial court lacks power after discharge; double jeopardy concerns	Court: Trial court may not be required or permitted to recall after finality; objection before finality allows sending jury back without double jeopardy problem
Whether plain error review can rescue an unpreserved inconsistent‑verdict claim	Givens: could seek plain error	State: failure to object forfeits issue; plain error unlikely	Court: Plain error review is narrow; Givens did not seek it and did not satisfy Rich factors, so claim waived

Price v. State, 405 Md. 10 (2008) (adopted rule that legally inconsistent jury verdicts are not allowed going forward; Harrell, J. concurrence articulated preservation procedure)
McNeal v. State, 426 Md. 455 (2012) (adopted distinction: factually inconsistent verdicts may stand; legally inconsistent verdicts may not)
Smith v. State, 299 Md. 158 (1984) (explains finality of jury verdicts: verdict is final when accepted after polling or hearkening)
S. Mgmt. Corp. v. Taha, 378 Md. 461 (2003) (civil precedent recognizing irreconcilable jury verdicts; discussed distinction between civil and criminal inconsistent verdicts)
Galloway v. State, 371 Md. 379 (2002) (emphasized protection of jury verdicts and cautioned against permitting court rulings to nullify jury findings)
Leet v. State, 203 Md. 285 (1953) (older rule tolerating some inconsistent jury verdicts; overruled by Price)
Rich v. State, 415 Md. 567 (2010) (sets four‑part test for plain‑error review)