State v. Thompson, 2005007025

Defendant Ryan Thompson was tried on DUI and driving without a valid license (NVL); jury convicted on DUI and acquitted on NVL.
Witnesses saw a Jeep lose control, crash into a field, and observed Thompson at the wreck trying to remove the vehicle from wire fencing.
Thompson admitted to drinking at the scene but denied he was the driver; blood test showed BAC 0.18.
Trial focused on who was driving; jury acquitted NVL (requires driving on a public roadway) but convicted DUI (requires actual physical control, not necessarily on a public roadway).
Thompson moved post-verdict for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict and, alternatively, a new trial, arguing the inconsistent verdict shows he was not the driver and that the "actual physical control" instruction was defective. Court denied both motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an acquittal on NVL requires overturning a DUI conviction due to inconsistency	Inconsistent verdicts are permissible; conviction stands if supported by sufficient evidence and may reflect jury lenity	Acquittal on NVL shows jury found Thompson did not drive, so DUI conviction is inconsistent and must be vacated or retried	Court applied lenity + sufficiency review, upheld DUI conviction and denied relief
Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain the DUI conviction	Witness identification, Thompson at wheel area after crash, and BAC 0.18 support a rational guilty verdict	Argued insufficiency because acquittal on NVL implies jury disbelieved he drove	Court found evidence legally sufficient to support DUI conviction
Whether the "actual physical control" jury instruction was defective	No prejudice; counsel received and agreed to the draft instruction before trial	Instruction was defective and undermines the conviction	Court rejected the belated challenge; defense had the instruction in advance and claim fails
Motion for new trial based on inconsistency/instructional error	Opposed; asserted verdict should stand	Alternative request for new trial if acquittal not treated as controlling	Motion for new trial denied

United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not automatically warrant overturning convictions)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (verdict inconsistency does not require reversal; courts should not speculate about jury deliberations)
Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1981) (inconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside)
Yaeger v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (U.S. 2009) (courts should avoid probing jury deliberations to explain inconsistent verdicts)
Tilden v. State, 513 A.2d 1302 (Del. 1986) (recognizing that inconsistent verdicts are permissible and not alone grounds for reversal)
Grimes v. State, 188 A.3d 824 (Del. 2018) (noting courts may attribute inconsistency to jury compromise or lenity and should uphold convictions supported by sufficient evidence)