State v. Ragland

Ragland (defendant) was charged with armed robbery and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The trial judge instructed the jury that it "must" convict Ragland of the weapons offense if it found he carried a weapon during the robbery, and the jury convicted him after so finding. Ragland argued on appeal that the word "must" conflicted with the jury's inherent nullification power and that the jury should have been instructed about that power.