The jury can be given a verdict form to record their verdict or can do so on the indictment. The fact that a possible guilty option is listed before the not guilty option on the verdict form is not improper. Mitchell v. State, 290 Ga. 490 (2012); Rucker v. State, 270 Ga. 431 (1999). Once the jury reaches a verdict it must be signed and dated by the foreperson and published in open court. The verdict cannot be unclear. If the jury returns a verdict that is unclear or legally unacceptable, the judge can refuse to accept the verdict and require the jury to continue deliberations. Ingram v. State, 290 Ga. 500 (2012). The defendant has no right to insist that the judge accept an unclear verdict. State v. Freeman, 264 Ga. 276 (1994). The judge instructing the jury to continue deliberations is not an expression of opinion as to the verdict the judge wants to be returned. Wade
v. State, 258 Ga. 324 (1998).
Inconsistent Verdicts
A defendant cannot complain that the jury verdict is inconsistent. Fairwell v. State, 311 Ga. App. 834 (2011); Harris v. State, 310 Ga. App. 460 (2011). For example, a jury can convict a defendant of armed robbery but acquit on possession of a firearm during a felony. The inconsistent verdict rule was abolished because inconsistent verdicts should not necessarily be interpreted as a windfall to the State at the defendant's expense. Turner v. State, 283 Ga. 17 (2008). The basis for this rule is simple. A court "cannot know and should not speculate why a jury acquitted on one offense and convicted on another offense." Artis v. State, 299 Ga. App. 287 (2009). The verdict could be the result of mistake, compromise, or lenity exercised in favor of the defendant. Masood v. State, 313 Ga. App. 549 (2012); Reese v. State 308 Ga. App. 528 (2011);
Smith v. State, 304 Ga. App. 708 (2010).
The fact that the inconsistency may be the result of lenity, coupled with the State's inability to appeal the not guilty verdict, suggests that inconsistent verdicts should not be reviewable. A defendant cannot challenge an inconsistent verdict on the ground that in their case the verdict was not the product of lenity but of some error that worked against them. Jamale v. State, 302 Ga. App. 140 (2010); Villagomez v. State, 279 Ga. App. 686 (2006). There is a narrow exception where reversal of an inconsistent verdict may occur in rare circumstances where the trial transcript makes clear the jury's rational for the verdict. Guajardo v. State, 290 Ga. 172 (2011); Turner v. State, 283 Ga. 17 (2008).
Mutually exclusive verdicts on the other hand may be set aside. Holcomb v. State, 310 Ga. App. 853 (2011). Verdicts are mutually exclusive where a guilty verdict on one count logically excludes a finding of guilt on the other count. State v. Owens, S14A0889; Drydenv. State, 316 Ga. App. 70 (2012); Young v. State, S11A1679; Jackson v. State, 278 Ga. 408 (2003). For instance, where the jury found both that the defendant acted with criminal intent and criminal negligence at the same time regarding the same victim. Flores v. State, 277 Ga. 780 (2004).
Partial Verdicts
It is not improper for the judge, upon learning that the jury has reached a verdict on one count, to let the jury publish its verdict as to that count and finish its deliberations on the other count. Walker v. State, 308 Ga. App. 176 (2011).