Maurice Lamar Robinson appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of cocaine. He claims the trial court erred when, instead of accepting the jury’s first of three verdicts as an acquittal, the court found the verdict was unclear and instructed the jury to resume deliberations to clarify the verdict. For the following reasons, we find no error and affirm the judgment entered on the subsequent guilty verdict accepted by the trial court. Robinson was indicted and tried before a jury on the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. After the close of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the charged offense and the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine, and gave complete instructions on the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict stating: “We, the jury, find him guilty with reasonable doubt of possession.” Finding the verdict unclear, the trial court questioned the jury foreman. Trial Court: You’re saying you find him guilty of possession, but you’re also saying with reasonable doubt of possession or reasonable doubt of intent Foreman: Both. Trial Court: So you’re saying you have a reasonable doubt as to the possession of the drugs —of guilty of the possession of the drugs, is that correct Foreman: That’s correct. The trial court then sent the jury out to continue its deliberations with the following instruction:
If you have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant as to either the original charge of possession with intent to distribute, then you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense, and if you have considered the offense of possession, the lesser offense of possession, and have a reasonable doubt about that, then you must find the defendant not guilty of that also. Now, I don’t know if that’s what your verdict is or not, but you’ve said guilty but with reasonable doubt, and that’s inconsistent. I cannot accept a verdict to that effect. Defense counsel objected on the basis that the trial court was required to accept the verdict as an acquittal based on the jury’s finding of reasonable doubt.
