State v. Henderson, 348 Conn. 648

Lawrence Lee Henderson was convicted by a jury of home invasion, after kicking down an apartment door with another individual, assaulting the resident, and stealing some belongings.
The trial included charges of home invasion, burglary, assault, and robbery, with lesser included offenses presented to the jury; the jury convicted on home invasion only.
Jury deliberations were interrupted for 25 days due to the defendant’s exposure to (and eventual contraction of) COVID-19; two jurors were replaced, and the court instructed the jury to restart its deliberations.
Defense counsel did not object to the jury’s verdict upon its return, but later moved for a mistrial, arguing prejudice from the 25-day delay; the trial court denied the motion.
Henderson appealed, arguing that legally inconsistent verdicts (guilty of home invasion, not guilty of lesser burglary) and the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial warranted reversal or a new trial.

Issue	Henderson’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether appellate courts should review legally inconsistent verdicts (guilty of greater, not guilty of lesser included offense).	Jury’s inconsistent verdict undermines justice and reliability; Arroyo should be overruled; verdicts should be reviewed and possibly vacated.	Arroyo is correct; reviewing inconsistency would require speculation; trial courts should not seek consistency sua sponte, and the state cannot appeal acquittals.	Court reaffirmed Arroyo: inconsistent verdicts (conviction and acquittal) are not reviewable on appeal; no plain error; verdict stands.
Whether the 25-day COVID-19 delay in jury deliberations prejudiced the defendant and required a mistrial.	Delay caused jurors to forget details and compromised fairness; court failed to canvass jurors about external influence.	Concerns speculative; trial court acted prudently amid pandemic; precautions taken; defendant failed to show actual prejudice.	No abuse of discretion; trial court's management was reasonable; denial of mistrial affirmed.

State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2009) (established that inconsistent verdicts between conviction and acquittal are not reviewable on appeal)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding appellate review of inconsistent verdicts is inappropriate and speculative)
State v. Chyung, 325 Conn. 236 (Conn. 2017) (distinguishes between inconsistent verdicts and mutually exclusive guilty convictions)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (inconsistent verdicts do not necessarily imply a miscarriage of justice)