Mercouri v. State, 2016 Ark. 37

In April 2013 Kelvin Perry, manager at Aaron’s, encountered Michael Mercouri in the parking lot; Mercouri produced a gun, grabbed Perry, demanded money, ordered him into the back seat, and pointed the gun when Perry said he had no money; Perry fled and Mercouri left.
Police located Mercouri within an hour; no firearm was recovered.
The State charged Mercouri with aggravated robbery, felon-in-possession of a firearm, and using a firearm to commit a felony; jury convicted on aggravated robbery but acquitted on the firearm-enhancement (found not armed with a deadly weapon); the felon-in-possession count was later nolle prossed.
Mercouri moved for a directed verdict at trial (arguing insufficient evidence regarding a deadly weapon); the motion was denied and he was sentenced to ten years in the DOC.
Postverdict, Mercouri moved to set aside the aggravated-robbery guilty verdict as inconsistent with the acquittal on the firearm enhancement; the trial court denied that motion.
Mercouri appealed, raising (1) sufficiency/directed-verdict issues and (2) inconsistency of jury verdicts; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of Mercouri’s motion for directed verdict (sufficiency of evidence) was erroneous	State: Evidence (Perry’s eyewitness ID and conduct) supported aggravated robbery conviction	Mercouri: Trial argument focused on insufficient evidence of a deadly weapon; on appeal he argued inconsistent verdicts (different theory)	Court: Directed-verdict sufficiency challenge reviewed in favor of State; Mercouri’s appellate inconsistency argument not preserved because he did not raise it at trial — denial affirmed
Whether the guilty verdict on aggravated robbery can be set aside as inconsistent with acquittal on firearm enhancement	State: Jury verdicts are final; inconsistencies arise from jury lenity/compromise and are not grounds to overturn convictions	Mercouri: Guilty of aggravated robbery requires being armed with a deadly weapon, so acquittal on firearm enhancement renders verdicts inconsistent	Court: Inconsistent/repugnant verdicts are not a basis for reversal; jury may exercise lenity/compromise — motion denied and conviction affirmed

Fink v. State, 469 S.W.3d 785 (Ark. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review and directed verdict)
Conte v. State, 463 S.W.3d 686 (Ark. 2015) (credibility and role of trier of fact)
Grisby v. State, 257 S.W.3d 104 (Ark. 2007) (preservation of appellate arguments)
Standridge v. State, 161 S.W.3d 815 (Ark. 2004) (preservation rules)
Jordan v. State, 917 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. 1996) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal)
McVay v. State, 847 S.W.2d 28 (Ark. 1993) (jury lenity/compromise can explain inconsistent verdicts)
United States v. Romano, 879 F.2d 1056 (2d Cir. 1989) (discussing jury lenity and compromise)