State v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
BATTAGLIA, Judge.
We are tasked to determine whether the rule of consistency bars the respondent’s conviction of conspiracy to commit murder when all of the named co-conspirators were acquitted of conspiracy in a prior and separate trial. Consistent with our decision in Gardner v. State, 286 Md. 520, 408 A.2d 1317 (1979), we hold that the rule of consistency is inapplicable to verdicts issued in separate trials. Thus, despite the acquittal of all of the respondent’s named co-conspirators in a prior trial, the respondent’s conviction for conspiracy is legally valid.
I. Background
A. Facts
On June…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. DotterweichSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Standefer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. Payne & BondCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Oliveira v. SugarmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
- Alston v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Hudson v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.