matter for judicial inquiry in Massachusetts

2023In any event, even if the verdicts were inconsistent or the result of compromise, "[i]nconsistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry." Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 537 (1981). 3 "[T]he rule is well established in criminal cases that mere inconsistency in verdicts, one of which is an acquittal, will not render the verdict of guilty erroneous even though such inconsistency may have indicated the possibility of compromise on the part of the jury." Commonwealth v. Medeiros, 456 Mass. 52, 57 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969

1997We start, however, with the general proposition that, apart from the situation in which there are inconsistent verdicts that are impossible as a matter of law, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sherry, 386 Mass. 682, 698 (1982), “[i]consistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 537 (1981).

2025Generally, "the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry." Commonwealth v. Hunt, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 643, 650 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 398 Mass. 615 , 619–620 (1986).

2013“Although generally the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry . . . , we will consider whether the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause . . . and whether the defendant has shown that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired . . . .’’Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 398 Mass. 615, 619-620 (1986), and cases cited.

2003Commonwealth v. Pike, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 656 (2001), quoting from Commonwealth v. Graves, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 76, 88 (1993) (“[ijnconsistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry unless the inconsistent verdicts are impossible as matter of law”). 16 7.

2001“Inconsistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry unless the inconsistent verdicts are impossible as matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Graves, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 76, 88 (1993).

1997See also Commonwealth v. Harrison, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 267, 270 (1988) (“The cases of both our appellate courts have uniformly held that factual inconsistencies in verdicts rendered in the same case do not afford a ground for setting aside a conviction”).

1990Whether or not there is a rational explanation of the verdict, it is the settled law that “[¡Inconsistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Harrison, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 267, 270 (1988), quoting from Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 537 (1981).

2023In any event, even if the verdicts were inconsistent or the result of compromise, "[i]nconsistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry." Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 537 (1981). 3 "[T]he rule is well established in criminal cases that mere inconsistency in verdicts, one of which is an acquittal, will not render the verdict of guilty erroneous even though such inconsistency may have indicated the possibility of compromise on the part of the jury." Commonwealth v. Medeiros, 456 Mass. 52, 57 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969

1988The cases of both our appellate courts have uniformly held that factual inconsistencies in verdicts rendered in the same case do not afford a ground for setting aside a conviction.* * 3 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walsh, 255 Mass. 317, 319-320 (1926); Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969); Commonwealth v. White, 363 Mass. 682, 682-684 (1973); Commonwealth v. Bowman, 373 Mass. 760 , 762 n.2 (1977); Commonwealth v. McCombe, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 842, 843 (1977); Commonwealth v. Diaz, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 31-33 ; Commonwealth v. Lowe, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 934, 935 (1985). 4 The Walsh, White and

1986Although generally the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 373 Mass. 591, 592 [1977]), we will consider whether grand jury evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause (Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160, 163 [1982]) and whether the defendant has shown that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired (Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 449-450 [1984]).

1986Although generally the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry ( Commonwealth v. Robinson, 373 Mass. 591, 592 [1977]), we will consider whether grand jury evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause ( Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 *620 Mass. 160, 163 [1982]) and whether the defendant has shown that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired ( Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 449-450 [1984]).

1988The cases of both our appellate courts have uniformly held that factual inconsistencies in verdicts rendered in the same case do not afford a ground for setting aside a conviction.* * 3 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walsh, 255 Mass. 317, 319-320 (1926); Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969); Commonwealth v. White, 363 Mass. 682, 682-684 (1973); Commonwealth v. Bowman, 373 Mass. 760 , 762 n.2 (1977); Commonwealth v. McCombe, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 842, 843 (1977); Commonwealth v. Diaz, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 31-33 ; Commonwealth v. Lowe, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 934, 935 (1985). 4 The Walsh, White and

1981See Commonwealth v. White, 363 Mass. 682, 684-685 (1973), and cases cited.

2025Generally, "the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry." Commonwealth v. Hunt, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 643, 650 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 398 Mass. 615 , 619–620 (1986).

2025Yet, "we will consider whether the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause[,] . . . and whether the defendant has shown that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired." Hunt, supra at 650-651 , quoting Mayfield, supra. Our review of a judge's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss on these grounds is de novo.2 See Commonwealth v. Barlow-Tucker, 493 Mass. 197 , 204 (2024). 2 For this reason, we need not and do not address the defendant's argument that the motion judge's "finding" that the cell phone was discovered in the defendant's

2023In any event, even if the verdicts were inconsistent or the result of compromise, "[i]nconsistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry." Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 537 (1981). 3 "[T]he rule is well established in criminal cases that mere inconsistency in verdicts, one of which is an acquittal, will not render the verdict of guilty erroneous even though such inconsistency may have indicated the possibility of compromise on the part of the jury." Commonwealth v. Medeiros, 456 Mass. 52, 57 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969

2003Commonwealth v. Pike, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 650, 656 (2001), quoting from Commonwealth v. Graves, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 76, 88 (1993) (“[ijnconsistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry unless the inconsistent verdicts are impossible as matter of law”). 16 7.

1997We start, however, with the general proposition that, apart from the situation in which there are inconsistent verdicts that are impossible as a matter of law, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sherry, 386 Mass. 682, 698 (1982), “[i]consistency of verdicts in criminal cases is not a matter for judicial inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 537 (1981).

1988The cases of both our appellate courts have uniformly held that factual inconsistencies in verdicts rendered in the same case do not afford a ground for setting aside a conviction.* * 3 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walsh, 255 Mass. 317, 319-320 (1926); Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969); Commonwealth v. White, 363 Mass. 682, 682-684 (1973); Commonwealth v. Bowman, 373 Mass. 760 , 762 n.2 (1977); Commonwealth v. McCombe, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 842, 843 (1977); Commonwealth v. Diaz, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 31-33 ; Commonwealth v. Lowe, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 934, 935 (1985). 4 The Walsh, White and

1988The cases of both our appellate courts have uniformly held that factual inconsistencies in verdicts rendered in the same case do not afford a ground for setting aside a conviction.* * 3 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walsh, 255 Mass. 317, 319-320 (1926); Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969); Commonwealth v. White, 363 Mass. 682, 682-684 (1973); Commonwealth v. Bowman, 373 Mass. 760 , 762 n.2 (1977); Commonwealth v. McCombe, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 842, 843 (1977); Commonwealth v. Diaz, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 31-33 ; Commonwealth v. Lowe, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 934, 935 (1985). 4 The Walsh, White and

1988The cases of both our appellate courts have uniformly held that factual inconsistencies in verdicts rendered in the same case do not afford a ground for setting aside a conviction.* * 3 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walsh, 255 Mass. 317, 319-320 (1926); Commonwealth v. Scott, 355 Mass. 471, 475 (1969); Commonwealth v. White, 363 Mass. 682, 682-684 (1973); Commonwealth v. Bowman, 373 Mass. 760 , 762 n.2 (1977); Commonwealth v. McCombe, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 842, 843 (1977); Commonwealth v. Diaz, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 31-33 ; Commonwealth v. Lowe, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 934, 935 (1985). 4 The Walsh, White and

1986Although generally the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 373 Mass. 591, 592 [1977]), we will consider whether grand jury evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause (Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160, 163 [1982]) and whether the defendant has shown that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired (Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 449-450 [1984]).

1986Although generally the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry ( Commonwealth v. Robinson, 373 Mass. 591, 592 [1977]), we will consider whether grand jury evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause ( Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 *620 Mass. 160, 163 [1982]) and whether the defendant has shown that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired ( Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 449-450 [1984]).

1986Although generally the adequacy or competency of evidence before a grand jury is not a matter for judicial inquiry (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 373 Mass. 591, 592 [1977]), we will consider whether grand jury evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause (Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160, 163 [1982]) and whether the defendant has shown that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired (Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 449-450 [1984]).