Wolfe v. Commonwealth (1988)

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 647-48 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988) (quoting United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 63, 65, 66 , 105 S.Ct. 471, 475, 477, 477 , 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (quoting Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393 , 52 S.Ct. 189, 190 , 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932))).

We have recognized that there is no mandate in our Rules that requires either party to file a transcript, Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 643 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 315 (1988), and “[t]he absence or late filing of the transcript ... does nothing to diminish our jurisdiction.” Turner, 2 Va.App. at 99 , 341 S.E.2d at 402 .

As noted in Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 645 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1988), "there are sound tactical reasons why an accused would not desire such an instruction and thus permit the jury to show leniency in convicting him of a lesser included offense of the primary felony; i.e., in this case voluntary manslaughter rather than murder." "The trial judge has broad discretion in giving or denying instructions requested." John L.

This the jury had the power to do, Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 649-50 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 319 (1988), but not the right or duty to do.

This Court's ruling that a jury's inconsistent verdicts does not provide a ground for reversal, see Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 649-50 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 319-20 (1988), is clearly subject to the general rule that the jury must be guided by proper instructions.

Such “inconsistent verdicts rendered by a jury[, however,] do not constitute reversible error,” Akers v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 521, 529 (2000), “provided that the evidence supports the verdict challenged on appeal[,]” Kovalaske v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 224, 233 (2010).21 The Supreme Court of Virginia has expressly refused to create “an exception to this rule” in cases, like 19 The appellant in Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 648 (1988), raised the same argumen…

See, e.g., Akers v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 521, 529 , 525 S.E.2d 13, 17 (2000); Tyler v. Commonwealth, 21 Va.App. 702, 707-09 , 467 S.E.2d 294, 296-97 (1996); Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 647-48 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988).

Regardless of the jury’s underlying conclusions in finding appellant guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the use of a firearm in the commission of murder, the apparently inconsistent verdicts were nonetheless valid. 2 See Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 650 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 319-20 (1988) (affirming jury verdicts for voluntary manslaughter and use of a firearm in the commission of murder).

United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 66 (1984); Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393 (1932); Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 648, 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988).

However, “inconsistent verdicts rendered by a jury do not constitute reversible error.” Wilkerson v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 808, 823 , 537 S.E.2d 27, 34 (2000). “[S]uch behavior” does not infringe on any of a defendant’s constitutional rights, “and as a result, states may develop their own rules regarding such verdicts.” Commonwealth v. Greer, 63 Va. App. 561, 571 , 760 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2014) (quoting Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 648 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988)…

Any potential error should be brought to the trial court’s attention so that the court may consider the issue and take corrective action to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 642 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 315 (1988).

While the decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule,” Wolf v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988), this case presents such exception.

We have long held that where a jury renders apparently inconsistent verdicts, “a search of the trial record in an attempt to reconcile such inconsistency is neither appropriate nor required.” Akers v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 521, 529 (2000) (quoting Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 650 (1988)). “[B]ecause Virginia is ‘more careful than most states to protect the inviolability and secrecy of jurors’ deliberations,’ a court, in a case like this, is unlikely to discover…

We have said that “[w]here a jury renders -8- inconsistent verdicts, ‘a search of the trial record in an attempt to reconcile such inconsistency is neither appropriate nor required.’” Akers, 31 Va. App. at 529 (quoting Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 650 (1988)).

These principles hold true even when the inconsistent verdicts involve “predicate and compound offenses committed at the same time and place.” Reed v. Commonwealth, 239 Va. 594, 597 (1990) (citing Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 394 (1932)). “[A] criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count [may] not attack that conviction because it [i]s inconsistent with -7- the jury’s verdict of acquittal on another count.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 647 (1988) (di…

“The most that can be said in such cases is that the verdict shows that either in the acquittal or the conviction the jury did not speak their real conclusions, but that does not show that they were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt.” Id. (quoting Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 647 (1988)).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript or statement of facts is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988).

Instead, “[w]here a jury renders inconsistent verdicts, ‘a search of the trial record in an attempt to reconcile such inconsistency is neither appropriate nor required.’” Akers, 31 Va. App. at 529 (quoting Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 650 (1988)).

Although reviewing a case on appeal without a transcript or written statement of facts is “the rare exception rather than the general rule,” strict adherence to the requirements is only necessary if “the transcript is indispensable to the determination of the case.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 643-44 (1988) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986)).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 (1988).

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 647-48 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988) (quoting Powell, 469 U.S. at 63 ).

The decision to review a case on appeal without a relevant transcript is “the rare exception rather than the general rule.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 644 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1988).

Similarly, a jury’s rendering of inconsistent verdicts in the guilt phase of *571 trial constitutes “ ‘[the] assumption of a power which [the jury] ha[s] no right to exercise.’ ” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 647-48 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 63 , 105 S.Ct. 471, 475 , 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 643 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 315 (1988) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 , 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986)).

Further, assuming the parties had an agreement, appellant has presented no evidence of the agreement’s terms. “[I]t is axiomatic that an appellate court’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 643 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1988) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 , 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986)).

“Jury verdicts may appear inconsistent because the jury has elected through mistake, compromise, or lenity to acquit or to convict of a lesser offense for one charged crime that seems in conflict with the verdict for another charged offense.” Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 82, 96 , 428 S.E.2d 16, 26 (1993) (citing United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65 , 105 S.Ct. 471, 476-77 , 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984); Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 649-50 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 319 …

“In Virginia, it is permissible for juries to reach inconsistent verdicts.” Ludwig v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 1, 12 , 660 S.E.2d 679, 684 (2008) (citing Gaines v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 562, 570 , 574 S.E.2d 775, 779 (2003) (en banc)). “[J]uries may reach inconsistent verdicts through mistake, compromise, or lenity, but in such instances it is ‘unclear whose ox has been gored,’ the government’s or the defendant’s.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 648 , 371 S.E.2d…

In Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 648 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988), we held an inconsistent jury verdict, which found the accused guilty of both voluntary manslaughter and use of a firearm in the commission of murder, was legally permissible.

Appellant’s stipulation that he did not appear in court on June 29, 2005, leaves this Court to decide if the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant received notice of the court date, and, if so, if appellant’s testimony was sufficient to rebut the resulting presumption that his failure to appear was willful. “[I]t is axiomatic that an appellate court’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal.” Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 643 ,…

Cf. Gray v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 227 , 503 S.E.2d 252 , (1998) (inconsistent verdict affirmed after the jury acquitted defendant of murder but found him guilty of the use of a firearm in the commission of murder where defense counsel did not object to the use of the model jury instruction and did not proffer an instruction that more precisely stated the law until sentencing); Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 645 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 316 (1988) (inconsistent jury verdic…

Although jury nullification undoubtedly occurs in some situations, see, e.g., Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 648-50 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318-20 (1988) (discussing inconsistent jury verdicts), the right to due process does not entitle a party to encourage such behavior, cf. Poyner v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 401, 413-14 , 329 S.E.2d 815, 825 (1985) (holding defendant in capital case has no due process right to retain jurors struck for cause because they indicated willingness…

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 647-48 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988) (quoting United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 63, 65, 66 , 105 S. Ct. 471, 475, 477 , 83 L.

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 647 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988).

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 643 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 315 (1988).

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 642 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 315 (1988).

However, following closing arguments, the court further instructed the jury, sua sponte, that "[i]f [you] determine that the Defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, you may also find [him] guilty of use of a firearm during the commission of a murder." Although such inconsistent verdicts do not provide grounds for reversal on appeal, see Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 649-50 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 319-20 (1988), the trial court has an "affirmative duty" to properly …

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640, 643 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 315-16 (1988); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.App. 96, 98-99 , 341 S.E.2d 400, 401-02 (1986).

Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 643 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 315-16 (1988); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 98-99 , 341 S.E.2d 400, 401-02 (1986).

See Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 640 , 371 S.E.2d 314 (1988)(holding inconsistent verdicts do not provide a basis for appeal).

"Jury verdicts may appear inconsistent because the jury has elected through mistake, compromise, or lenity to acquit or to convict of a lesser offense for one charged crime that seems in conflict with the verdict for another charged offense." Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 82, 96 , 428 S.E.2d 16, 26 (1993) (citations omitted); see also Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640 , 371 S.E.2d 314 (1988).

See Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 640, 647-48 , 371 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1988) (holding that a jury’s determination of a defendant’s guilt and not the logic of its verdicts is the issue to be considered on appeal).