Ndunguru v. State, 168 A.3d 1003

Ndunguru charged in Prince George’s County circuit court with robbery, second-degree assault, and theft of property < $100; convicted by jury of robbery and second-degree assault, theft acquitted; sentences: 10 years for robbery with 3 years suspended plus 5 years probation; other convictions merged.
Initial jury verdicts: guilty of assault and robbery, not guilty of theft, creating a legally inconsistent verdict.
Circuit court sua sponte instructed jury to continue deliberations to resolve inconsistency, despite no defense objection; jury later returned guilty verdicts on all counts after re-deliberation and was polled.
Appellant argued objections to admission of testimony about a police officer’s intent to search his phone; trial court sustained the objection as hearsay; appellant did not preserve a Rule 5-803(b)(3) theory below.
Court analyzed preservation standards for excluded evidence and for inconsistent verdicts; ultimately affirmed circuit court’s judgments.
Maryland precedent now treats factually inconsistent verdicts as potentially permissible, while legally inconsistent verdicts are not; the court held the circuit court erred in sua sponte sending jury back to deliberate, but appellant failed to preserve the error; no relief granted on that ground.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to testimony about a police officer’s intent to search the phone	Ndunguru argues admissibility under Rule 5-803(b)(3)	State contends not preserved and no prejudice shown	Not preserved for review; affirmed the ruling on appeal.
Whether the circuit court erred in sua sponte directing jury to resolve inconsistent verdicts	Ndunguru asserts improper judicial intervention without defense request	State contends proper because defense conceded inconsistency and sought acquittal on theft	Court erred in sua sponte action; however, relief denied; judgments affirmed.

Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391 (Md. 1997) (preservation required for excluded evidence; limitations on hearsay exceptions)
Mack v. State, 300 Md. 583 (Md. 1984) (trial court may set aside verdict when misapplied law; inconsistent verdicts proper subject of review)
Randall v. State, 223 Md. App. 519 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (proponent must explain admissibility theory; proffer required to preserve error)
Price v. State, 405 Md. 10 (Md. 2008) (legal vs. factual inconsistencies; duration of finality; role of defense objection)
Givens v. State, 449 Md. 433 (Md. 2016) (court may not sua sponte send jury to resolve inconsistency without defense request (majority))
McNeal v. State, 426 Md. 455 (Md. 2012) (addresses inconsistent verdicts and appellate relief framework)
Bates v. State, 127 Md. App. 678 (Md. App. 1993) (trial court should correct defective verdicts; duty to direct proper form)
Gilliam v. State, 331 Md. 651 (Md. 1993) (preservation where trial court action not objected to; acquiescence effects)
Watkins v. State, 328 Md. 95 (Md. 1992) (acquiescence to court rulings; limits on appellate review)