Michael A. Mercouri, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed Mercouri’s aggravated-robbery conviction. It held that his sufficiency argument based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts was not preserved because he presented a different directed-verdict argument below, and that the apparent inconsistency between the aggravated-robbery conviction and the firearm-enhancement acquittal did not warrant setting aside the conviction. The court explained that juries may return inconsistent verdicts as an exercise of lenity or compromise.