Can Utah courts overturn legally impossible jury verdicts? Pleasant Grove City v. Terry Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed a perplexing jury verdict scenario in Pleasant Grove City v. Terry, establishing a new rule for handling legally impossible verdicts. The case arose when a jury convicted Terry of domestic violence in the presence of a child while simultaneously acquitting him of the underlying domestic violence assault that formed the predicate for the compound offense.

Background and Facts

Terry was charged with domestic violence assault and commission of domestic violence in the presence of a child following an altercation with his ex-wife while picking up their children from school. The compound offense was predicated entirely on the commission of the assault offense. After initially deadlocking, the jury reached verdicts acquitting Terry of domestic violence assault but convicting him of domestic violence in the presence of a child. The trial judge was “baffled” by this outcome but found no precedent requiring intervention.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah courts must accept legally impossible verdicts where a defendant is acquitted on a predicate offense but convicted on a compound offense that requires proof of the predicate. The court distinguished between factually inconsistent verdicts and legally impossible verdicts, noting they present “distinct problems” requiring different treatment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that legally impossible verdicts “cannot stand as a matter of law” because they are “repugnant” to justice. Unlike factually inconsistent verdicts, which courts review only for sufficiency of evidence, legally impossible verdicts present pure questions of law reviewed for correctness. The court rejected the majority federal approach from United States v. Powell, finding its “lenity presumption” unpersuasive. Using its constitutionally granted supervisory authority, the court established a rule requiring vacatur of such verdicts.

Practice Implications

This decision creates a narrow but important exception to Utah’s general rule of reviewing each count independently. Practitioners should be aware that compound offense convictions are vulnerable if juries acquit on predicate offenses. The court tasked its advisory committee with studying broader inconsistent verdict issues, suggesting potential future developments in this area.