State of Iowa v. Marshaun Jordan Merrett, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 7

Background

Late-night confrontation between Marshaun Merrett (driver of a Monte Carlo) and three women in a rented Buick; shots were fired into the Buick and passengers feared injury.
Merrett was charged with attempted murder (three counts), criminal gang participation, intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent (Count V), and driving while barred; jury was instructed on aiding-and-abetting and lesser included offenses.
Forcible-felony enhancement procedure required a special interrogatory under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.22(2) / Iowa Code § 902.7 asking whether the defendant represented he was armed or displayed a dangerous weapon.
Jury convicted Merrett of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent (Count V) but answered "No" to the special interrogatory about possession/display of a dangerous weapon; court initially viewed this as inconsistent.
Defense, joined by the State, elected to accept the verdicts rather than return the jury for clarification; the district court accepted the verdicts, imposed no 5-year mandatory minimum, and sentenced Merrett.
The court of appeals vacated Count V and remanded for a new trial due to inconsistency; Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the general guilty verdict for intimidation with intent is inconsistent with a “No” answer to the special interrogatory on firearm possession	State: verdicts not inconsistent because jury could convict under aiding-and-abetting theory while answering the firearm question "No" as to Merrett personally	Merrett: Halstead requires reversal when compound or logical inconsistency exists; accepting inconsistent verdicts was error and retrial barred by double jeopardy/collateral estoppel	Court held verdicts were not inconsistent given the instructions and special interrogatory wording; affirmed convictions and sentences
Whether the trial court erred by accepting the verdicts when it perceived an inconsistency and offered to resubmit questions to the jury	State: even if inconsistent, parties invited acceptance; trial court permissibly offered alternatives	Merrett: trial court should have clarified or ordered new trial rather than accept inconsistent verdicts	Court did not reach invited-error argument because it found no inconsistency under the charge as given
Whether Counts I–III (attempted murder/assault convictions) are inconsistent with the Count V special interrogatory answer	Merrett: the negative special interrogatory undermines other convictions that depended on firearm use	State: same reasoning as to Count V—instructions permitted aiding-and-abetting liability distinct from personal possession	Court found no inconsistency with Counts I–III and did not decide other ineffective-assistance claims

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mumford, 338 N.W.2d 366 (Iowa 1983) (trial court may send jury back or order new trial when special findings conflict with general verdict)
State v. Halstead, 791 N.W.2d 805 (Iowa 2010) (compound-offense inconsistency between conviction and acquittal on predicate felony requires reversal)
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95 (Iowa 2004) (close review of instructions/evidence can show no true inconsistency)
State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1994) (rejecting inconsistent-verdict challenge after examining charge and evidence)
State v. Phanhsouvanh, 494 N.W.2d 219 (Iowa 1992) (same)
State v. Sanders, 280 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa 1979) (holding that aiders and abettors can fall within firearm-enhancement statute)
State v. Propps, 190 N.W.2d 408 (Iowa 1971) (presumption favoring general verdict when not irreconcilably inconsistent with special findings)
State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010) (instructions become law of the case)