A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Legal inconsistency refers to a verdict in which the same element is found to exist and not to exist. For example, a defendant may be acquitted of one offense and convicted of another, even though the offenses arise from the same set of facts and an element of the second offense requires proof that the first offense has been committed.

Example: A defendant is charged with both murder and manslaughter. The jury finds the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. However, the element of manslaughter requires proof that the defendant caused the victim's death, which is also an element of murder. This verdict is legally inconsistent because the jury found that the defendant did and did not cause the victim's death at the same time.

Legal inconsistency can also occur when a jury reaches a verdict that contradicts itself or when a defendant is convicted and acquitted of different crimes having identical elements.