McELRATH v. State, 308 Ga. 104

Damian McElrath (age 18 at the time) stabbed his adoptive mother Diane more than 50 times; she died at the scene. McElrath confessed and made statements claiming she had been poisoning him.
McElrath had a long history of severe mental illness (schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder) and longstanding delusions, including that Diane was poisoning him; experts agreed he suffered delusions and mental disease.
He was indicted for malice murder, felony murder (predicated on aggravated assault), and aggravated assault; after a retrial a jury returned: not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) as to malice murder, but guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) of felony murder (aggravated assault predicate).
The State presented evidence to support both the insanity-based defense for malice murder and evidence supporting GBMI felony murder; the jury apparently accepted different mental-state findings for the same single episode.
The Georgia Supreme Court held the two verdicts were legally repugnant because they required mutually exclusive affirmative findings about McElrath’s sanity during the same criminal episode, vacated both verdicts, and remanded for a new trial.
The Court also vacated the trial court’s subsequent order placing McElrath in Department of Corrections custody under OCGA § 17-7-131 as moot given the vacatur.

Issue	McElrath's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the jury’s contradictory verdicts (NGRI for malice murder and GBMI for felony murder) are repugnant and require vacatur	Verdicts are repugnant because they find him insane (NGRI) and criminally responsible (GBMI) for the same single episode	Milam/Shepherd allow inconsistent verdicts to stand; these are merely inconsistent/allowed	Verdicts are repugnant: vacated both and remanded for new trial
Whether the verdicts are governed by the inconsistent-verdict rule (Milam/Powell) or are repugnant/mutually exclusive	Milam does not save these verdicts because repugnant verdicts require affirmative, incompatible findings on the record	Milam/Shepherd mean appellate courts should not upset inconsistent verdicts	Milam does not abolish repugnant- verdict doctrine; Shepherd is distinguishable/disapproved as to this point
Validity of trial court’s order remanding McElrath to DOC under OCGA §17-7-131(g)	Trial court applied subsection for convicted GBMI defendants incorrectly; order improper	Trial court acted under GBMI finding	Order vacated as moot because the underlying GBMI verdict was vacated
Whether remaining challenges to the GBMI felony-murder conviction require relief	GBMI conviction was erroneous for reasons raised	State defends conviction on the merits	Court did not address these remaining claims because both convictions were vacated as repugnant

United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (internally inconsistent jury verdicts may stand because double jeopardy bars Government correction)
Milam v. State, 255 Ga. 560 (1985) (abolished rule that inconsistent guilty/not-guilty verdicts automatically require reversal)
Dumas v. State, 266 Ga. 797 (1996) (mutually exclusive guilty verdicts require reversal/new trial)
Turner v. State, 283 Ga. 17 (2008) (discussing when record reveals jury’s reasoning so inconsistent-verdict doctrine may not apply)
Shepherd v. State, 280 Ga. 245 (2006) (permitting some inconsistent verdicts; distinguished/disapproved in part here)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Bowman v. State, 306 Ga. 97 (2019) (discussing legal standards for insanity and delusional-compulsion defenses)
Buford v. State, 300 Ga. 121 (2016) (insanity burden and standards)
Lawrence v. State, 265 Ga. 310 (1994) (delusional compulsion defense explained)
Guajardo v. State, 290 Ga. 172 (2011) (appellate handling of contradictory jury verdicts)