Graham v. State
596, 2016
| Del. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Levar Graham was tried in Superior Court for felony Resisting Arrest with Force or Violence; jury convicted him of that felony and acquitted him of misdemeanor Offensive Touching and Disorderly Conduct.
- After verdict, Graham moved for a new trial arguing the acquittal on Offensive Touching was inconsistent with the felony conviction because the felony required use of force.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion, finding the verdicts could be reconciled and that sufficient evidence supported the felony conviction.
- Key factual disputes: the arresting officer testified Graham struck him in the face with a clenched fist; a witness described a twisting/
flailmotion and the officer falling; Graham denied striking the officer but admitted pulling away and fleeing when the officer grabbed him. - The court evaluated whether the jury’s acquittal could be explained by jury lenity or mens rea findings and whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find the force element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent verdicts (acquittal on Offensive Touching, conviction on Resisting Arrest) require a new trial | Graham: acquittal on Offensive Touching means jury rejected State’s evidence of force, so felony conviction is inconsistent and must be vacated | State: inconsistency can be explained by jury lenity or differing findings on mental state; also evidence suffices to support felony | Denied — inconsistency alone insufficient; verdicts can stand under jury-lenity doctrine if conviction is supported by sufficient evidence |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove use of force or violence for Resisting Arrest | Graham: lack of proof of force because jury acquitted Offensive Touching | State: testimony (officer and witnesses) supports either a blow to the face or forceful twisting/pulling away constituting force | Held sufficient — testimony of officer, witness, and defendant’s own admission about resisting supported force element |
| Whether the jury-lenity rule applies to reconcile inconsistent verdicts | Graham: jury’s acquittal shows rejection of force; lenity cannot save inconsistent convictions | State: Powell/Tilden permit upholding conviction when inconsistency may reflect lenity, compromise, or mistake | Court applied Tilden and Powell: acquittal may reflect lenity; conviction may stand if supported by evidence |
| Whether the required mental state for Offensive Touching could explain acquittal despite force evidence | Graham: acquittal shows no force; alternatively jury found no requisite intent | State: jury could have found force but not the specific intent required for misdemeanor offensive touching | Court: plausible jury could have credited force but found lack of intent for Offensive Touching; thus acquittal consistent with conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Burroughs v. State, 988 A.2d 445 (Del. 2010) (standard of review for denial of new trial)
- Tilden v. State, 513 A.2d 1302 (Del. 1986) (adopting jury-lenity rule for inconsistent verdicts coupled with sufficiency review)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (explaining rationale for upholding inconsistent verdicts under jury lenity)
- Dickerson v. State, 975 A.2d 791 (Del. 2009) (defining “force” by ordinary/dictionary meaning; pushing/pulling can constitute force)
- Cephas v. State, 911 A.2d 799 (Del. 2006) (use of dictionary definitions where statute is silent)