McElrath v. State, 315 Ga. 126

Damien McElrath was tried for killing his mother after a single continuous stabbing episode; the jury returned inconsistent mental-state verdicts: guilty but mentally ill on felony murder (based on aggravated assault) and not guilty by reason of insanity on malice murder.
The trial court accepted both verdicts. On appeal the Supreme Court of Georgia held the verdicts were legally repugnant, vacated both verdicts, and remanded for a new trial.
On remand McElrath filed a plea in bar contending double jeopardy and collateral estoppel precluded retrial because the jury had acquitted him by reason of insanity on the malice murder count.
The trial court denied McElrath’s plea in bar; McElrath appealed, arguing (1) this Court should have reversed—rather than vacated—the felony murder conviction in the prior appeal, and (2) retrial is barred by double jeopardy/collateral estoppel.
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed: it invoked law of the case to decline revisiting its prior vacatur and held that repugnant verdicts are void and therefore do not produce a valid acquittal that bars retrial; collateral estoppel likewise did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this Court erred in vacating both verdicts and instead should have let the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict stand while reversing the felony-murder conviction	McElrath: the insanity acquittal should stand and the felony murder verdict should be reversed	State: prior decision that the verdicts were repugnant and vacated is binding; law of the case prevents relitigation	Court: Law of the case binds; prior holding that verdicts were repugnant and vacated stands; no reconsideration granted
Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy because of the jury’s not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict on malice murder	McElrath: the insanity acquittal is an absolute bar to retrial on that and related counts	State: verdicts were repugnant and thus void; no valid acquittal occurred to terminate jeopardy	Court: Double jeopardy does not bar retrial because the repugnant verdicts are null and did not terminate jeopardy
Whether collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of McElrath’s sanity at the time of the killing	McElrath: the jury necessarily decided insanity in his favor on malice murder	State: inconsistent/repugnant verdicts preclude inferring any rational, necessary factual finding; collateral estoppel requires a valid final judgment	Court: Collateral estoppel does not apply where jury returned repugnant verdicts that are void and do not reflect a determinative factual finding

McElrath v. State, 308 Ga. 104 (vacating repugnant verdicts and remanding for retrial)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (collateral estoppel requires a valid, final judgment)
Green v. United States, 255 U.S. 184 (acquittal is ordinarily an absolute bar to retrial)
Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (acquittal on guilt is final under Double Jeopardy Clause)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (acquittal finality even if erroneous)
Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (hung jury does not terminate jeopardy; retrial permitted)
United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (a verdict must represent a resolution of factual elements to be valid)
Giddens v. State, 299 Ga. 109 (collateral estoppel premised on rational jury findings)
State v. Owens, 312 Ga. 212 (voidness of judgments entered on repugnant verdicts)