The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument on whether jury instructions in the trial of Joshua Hart produced legally inconsistent verdicts that cannot be reconciled.

Steven Maidman, counsel for Joshua Hart, told the court the trial judge used modified model homicide instructions that incorrectly told jurors “the act of the defendant did not complete the crime,” and that error produced verdicts that are “legally inconsistent,” a problem the trial court and parties failed to spot until appeal. Maidman said the record shows multiple acts were at issue and argued the jury could not have rationally found both that one act did not complete the crime and that another did.

The issue matters because inconsistent or “repugnant” verdicts can trigger relief, affect whether a conviction stands, and raise questions about whether a retrial or resentencing is required. Counsel and several justices discussed whether the attempted-murder conviction — on which the trial court imposed no sentence — can be appealed or vacated and whether double-jeopardy or other procedural bars apply.

Maidman said the jury was instructed in a way that distinguished attempt by reference to the defendant’s act rather than to whether the crime itself was completed, and that the Commonwealth’s closing did not clearly parse which act supported which verdict. “This case involves jury instructions for attempted murder,” Maidman said. “The jury . . . the verdicts are legally inconsistent. They cannot be reconciled.”

Counsel for the Commonwealth, identified in argument as Attorney Von Speerin, asked the court to affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the inconsistent verdicts, saying the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence supporting separate acts underlying each indictment. Von Speerin argued the jury could reasonably have found a nonlethal smothering attempt distinct from stab wounds that proved fatal, and that the defendant’s statements and other evidence could support separate findings.

Justices questioned which standard of review applies to an unpreserved instructional error and whether the record shows the jury relied on separate acts for each conviction. One justice noted the presumption that juries follow instructions, while another pressed whether, given the instructions as given, the jury’s internal reasoning can be known. The parties and justices discussed Massachusetts precedents and analogous federal habeas contexts; counsel cited the Haskins decision and a more recent Commonwealth v. Nascimento opinion in briefing.

A procedural wrinkle discussed at length was that no sentence was imposed on the attempted-murder conviction. Counsel and several justices questioned whether a conviction with no sentence can be appealed in the usual way and what practical effect affirmance or reversal would have in that posture. Maidman told the court he researched double-jeopardy issues and found no bar to retrial in the circumstances on the record.

No decision was announced at argument. The case remains under advisement before the court.

Details from oral argument and the record about what specific jury instructions were given, the text of the indictments, and which acts the jury might have relied on were debated at the hearing; justices asked follow-up questions about the medical examiner’s findings, the defendant’s statements to police, and the trial testimony that the parties say could support separate-act findings.