PEOPLE v. WALKER, 461 Mich. 908 (1999)

603 N.W.2d 784

No. 113156.Supreme Court of Michigan.
November 2, 1999.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the September 8, 1998, decision of the Court of Appeals, is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. In this case, the trial court dismissed the felony-firearm charge while convicting the defendant of malicious destruction of property, which destruction was the product of a firearm discharge. Thus, the verdict rendered was patently inconsistent. Moreover, the trial court gave no explanation for its dismissal of the felony-firearm charge. We have previously held that a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact may not enter an inconsistent verdict. While juries are not held to rules of logic, or required to explain their decisions, a judge sitting without a jury is not afforded the same lenience. People v Vaughn, 409 Mich. 463; 295 N.W.2d 354
(1980). Moreover, because of double jeopardy principles, the error of the trial court in dismissing a claim and rendering an inconsistent verdict cannot be corrected on appeal.

Court of Appeals No. 195596.