Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that an apparent inconsistency between a vehicular assault verdict implying drug impairment and a vehicular homicide special finding that the defendant was not under the influence of drugs did not constitute manifest constitutional error. Because sufficient evidence supported the vehicular assault conviction, the defendant waived the issue by failing to object before the jury was discharged. The court also rejected the ineffective-assistance claim, concluding that counsel's failure to object caused no prejudice and could have been a reasonable tactical decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the apparent inconsistency between the vehicular-assault verdict and the vehicular-homicide special finding constituted a manifest error affecting a constitutional right that could be raised for the first time on appeal.
- Whether the apparent inconsistency rendered the vehicular-assault conviction void.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the alleged inconsistency before the jury was discharged.
Holdings
- An apparent inconsistency between jury verdicts does not by itself constitute manifest error affecting a constitutional right. When each verdict is supported by sufficient evidence, the inconsistency is not reversible error and the failure to object before the jury is discharged waives the challenge.
- Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance because McNeal could not show prejudice from the failure to object, and the decision not to object was reasonably attributable to a tactical strategy to avoid a potentially harsher sentence.
Key quotations
““[I]t is this showing of actual prejudice that makes the error ‘manifest’, allowing appellate review.”” (357)
““Where the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence from which it could rationally find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”” (359)
“We hold that because the vehicular assault verdict is supported by sufficient evidence the apparent inconsistency between the vehicular assault and vehicular homicide verdicts is not a manifest error affecting a constitutional right.” (364)
Factual background
McNeal drove across the centerline of a Lewis County road, causing a head-on collision that seriously injured one person and killed another. Police found methamphetamine, a syringe, a razor blade, and $4,250 in cash in his vehicle and possession. His blood contained .31 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter, and witnesses described him as fatigued or lethargic after the collision. The jury convicted him of vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, but found for the homicide charge that he was not operating under the influence of drugs while the vehicular-assault verdict implied that he was.
Procedural history
McNeal was convicted in the trial court of vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court granted review on waiver and ineffective-assistance issues and affirmed the Court of Appeals.