00-3176 State v. Hughes

Listen to this article

This is so because, “the jury’s unanimous findings (confirmed when the trial court polled the jury) that Hughes possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver it, and that he also possessed that cocaine were not inconsistent. Additionally, Hughes does not explain beyond mere rhetoric how the jury’s unanimous findings that Hughes both possessed cocaine and that he possessed that cocaine with intent to deliver it was either ‘perverse’ or ‘ambiguous,’ or violated any of his rights – constitutional or otherwise. …

“Indeed, had the jury followed the trial court’s instructions, the jury would have stopped after it unanimously found that Hughes possessed cocaine with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school. Thus, the second “guilty” verdict, which affirmed that Hughes possessed that cocaine, was mere surplusage and is precisely the type of harmless error that Wis. Stat. Rule 805.18(2) commands shall not be the basis for a reversal.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Donald, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Ann Auberry, Milwaukee; James A. Rebholz, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Lara M. Herman, Madison