Teixeira v. State
213 Md. App. 664
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Teixeira was convicted of armed carjacking, carjacking, conspiracy to commit armed carjacking, armed robbery, robbery, unauthorized removal of property and both first- and second-degree assault; handgun-related charges were acquitted.
- The jury acquitted handgun-use and related charges while convicting on weapon-based carjacking/robbery counts.
- After verdicts, jurors were polled and excused; defense argued the verdicts were legally inconsistent.
- Trial court analyzed verdict elements and concluded the verdicts were not legally inconsistent.
- The State argued the issue was defaulted because objection occurred after jurors were discharged, but the court allowed recall and preserved the challenge.
- This appeal addresses whether the jury could be reconvened after discharge to address potentially inconsistent verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the verdicts legally inconsistent? | Teixeira argues inconsistency between handgun acquittals and weapon-based convictions. | State contends no legal inconsistency; possible only factual anomalies. | Verdicts are not legally inconsistent. |
| Was the objection preserved despite post-discharge timing? | Teixeira timely raised the issue while jurors were still available. | Objection was untimely after discharge per default rules. | Timely preserved; not barred by procedural default. |
| What standard governs review of inconsistent verdicts? | Rule under McNeal/Price framework for inconsistency. | Price created a changed standard applicable to inconsistent verdicts. | Court reviews de novo for legal inconsistency; distinction between legal vs factual inconsistency applied. |
| Does Price/McNeal require vacatur for factual vs. legal inconsistency? | Factual inconsistencies may be tolerated; legal inconsistencies require vacatur. | Inconsistent verdicts limited by Price/McNeal framework. | The case involves factual, not legally inconsistent, verdicts; no vacatur required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 405 Md. 10 (Md. 2008) (redefines inconsistent verdicts; no longer tolerates legally inconsistent verdicts; preservation required)
- Hoffert v. State, 319 Md. 377 (Md. 1990) (recall of jurors before dispersion allowed to complete verdicts; limits on discharge recovery)
- McNeal v. State, 426 Md. 455 (Md. 2012) (distinguishes legally vs. factually inconsistent verdicts; no lesser included offenses in this context)
- People v. Muhammad, 935 N.Y.S.2d 526 (N.Y. 2011) (inconsistent verdicts evaluated by elements rather than proof presented)