State v. Wright, 2013 Ohio 4445

State v. Wright, 11-MA-14 in Mahoning County, appeal from felonious assault conviction with a firearm specification acquittal.
Jury convicted felonious assault (with deadly weapon) and not guilty on the accompanying firearm specification.
State asked the Seventh District to certify a conflict with decisions of other districts under Section 3(B)(4), Article VI, Ohio Constitution.
Issue presented: whether the inconsistent verdict warrants reversal under State v. Koss, conflicting with Perryman-based decisions.
The Wright majority concluded Perryman controls, not Koss, thus no conflict meriting certification.
The court denied the State’s request to certify a conflict; multiple opinions (concurrence/dissent) accompany the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inconsistent verdict on felonious assault and firearm specification creates a conflict	Wright argues conflicting authorities require certification	Wright contends Perryman governs, not Koss, so no conflict	No conflict; certification denied
Which controlling rule governs inconsistent verdicts after Perryman and Koss	State favors Perryman as controlling	Wright adopts Koss as controlling law	Koss not controlling here; Perryman governs per Wright analysis

State v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-1424 (Ohio 2013) (court applied Perryman over Koss for inconsistent verdicts)
State v. Perryman, 49 Ohio St.2d 14, 358 N.E.2d 1040 (1976) (inconsistent verdicts against gun specification; controlling rule before Perryman)
State v. Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d 213, 551 N.E.2d 970 (1990) (newer framework; held inconsistent verdicts may require reversal; later limited by Wright)
State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d 440, 1997-Ohio-371, 683 N.E.2d 1112 (1997) (discussion of Perryman vs. Koss; possible implicit affirmation of Perryman)
State v. Browning, 120 Ohio St. 62, 165 N.E.2d 566 (1929) (counts not interdependent; inconsistency arises from same count)
State v. Adams, Not cited with official reporter; omitted () (—)