Likewise, we now explicitly overrule Court of Appeals decisions, including those relied upon by that court in this case, that held—without citing cases involving void verdicts—that a criminal defendant waived the ability to challenge mutually exclusive verdicts by not objecting at the time the verdicts were rendered. See Mathis v. State , 343 Ga. App. 206, 212 (2) n.9, 807 S.E.2d 4 (2017) (quoting only Smith v. State , 282 Ga. App. 339, 638 S.E.2d 791 (2006), for the proposition that " ‘[a] defendant waives any argument that the verdict contains mutually exclusive findings or is otherwise inconsistent, confusing, or irregular if he fails to object to the form of the verdict’ "); Smith , 282 Ga. App. at 341 (1), 638 S.E.2d 791 (same, citing Webb v. State , 270 Ga. App. 817, 608 S.E.2d 241 (2004) and Wilkes v. State , 210 Ga. App. 898, 437 S.E.2d 837 (1993) ); Webb , 270 Ga. App. at 818 (2), 608 S.E.2d 241 (holding that failure to object to the form of the verdict constituted a waiver of any objection on the ground that the verdicts were mutually exclusive, citing only Ellison v. State , 265 Ga. App. 446, 448 (3), 594 S.E.2d 675 (2004), a case regarding a verdict that allegedly was "inconsistent, confusing, or otherwise irregular"); Wilkes , 210 Ga. App. at 899 (1), 437 S.E.2d 837 (citing no authority for the proposition that "failure to object to the form of the verdict [as mutually exclusive] contributed to any error, therefore, Wilkes cannot be heard to complain on appeal"). In determining that a defendant may waive the ability to challenge mutually exclusive verdicts, it appears that the Court of Appeals relied on a series of its own prior cases that held that a defendant's failure to object to the verdict waives any objection that the verdict was "inconsistent, confusing, or otherwise irregular."

" In response to the trial court's explanation and characterization of the verdict form as "clear," Campbell acquiesced by stating "very well." Thereafter, the trial court gave Campbell another opportunity to review the verdict form, but Campbell raised no objection at that time. Under these circumstances, Campbell's enumeration asserting an erroneous phrasing of the verdict form presents nothing for review. Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898, 899 (2) ( 437 S.E.2d 837) (1993); Vandiver v. State, 81 Ga. App. 756, 758 (2) ( 59 S.E.2d 763) (1950). 3. Campbell enumerates as error the admission of post-autopsy photographs, but it appears that only pre-autopsy photographs were admitted. These photographs show surgical incisions which were made in the unsuccessful effort to save Cooper's life, as well as the stab wounds inflicted by Campbell.

Webb v. State, 270 Ga. App. 817, 818 (2) ( 608 SE2d 241) (2004).Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898,899 (1) ( 437 SE2d 837) (1993) (physical precedent only). Moreover, even if this matter were not waived, we note that the underlying premise of Smith's argument is that the verdict is inconsistent.

Indeed, failure to object to the form of the verdict at the time it was rendered waives any complaint that the verdict was inconsistent, confusing, or otherwise irregular. Mayorga v. State, 225 Ga. App. 496, 497 ( 484 S.E.2d 292) (1997); Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898, 898-899(1), (2) ( 437 S.E.2d 837) (1993); Bissell v. State, 153 Ga. App. 564, 566-567(2) ( 266 S.E.2d 238) (1980). Second, there is nothing improper with a jury finding a defendant guilty of both the charged offense and a lesser-included offense.

Additionally, McElroy has cited no precedent which would have required the trial court to submit a special verdict form. A special verdict form may have reminded the jury of its alternatives, but we do not find that in its absence the jury was likely confused. See Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898, 899 (2) ( 437 S.E.2d 837) (1993). 2.

Nonetheless, defense counsel was asked to examine the verdict form and state any objections. Defense counsel stated that defendant had no objections, and this failure to preserve the issue now argued must be viewed as a waiver. Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898, 899 (2) ( 437 S.E.2d 837). Judgment affirmed. Eldridge, J., and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke, concur.

Moreover, even if this verdict form was error, Dean did not object to it at trial and he cannot now complain. Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898, 899 (2) ( 437 S.E.2d 837) (1993). Judgment affirmed.

The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive and are based on entirely independent crimes. See Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898, 899 ( 437 S.E.2d 837) (1993). Further, appellant waived any such assertion by failing to object to the form of the verdict at the time it was rendered.

Miles contends the superior court committed legal error in finding no reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against Carr and reinstating her driver's license. Specifically, Miles argues that the standard of review for the criminal action of failure to stop at a red light is a higher standard than that for a civil action against Carr. See Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga. App. 898 ( 437 S.E.2d 837) (1993) (failure to obey official traffic control device is a criminal offense) (physical precedent only). We agree.

Upon the jury's return of the completed verdict that found the retirement account to be Husband's separate property and the publication of the verdict by the court clerk, the completed verdict form was displayed to counsel for the parties and the trial court inquired if there was any objection to the form of the verdict as framed, to which both counsel affirmatively stated there was no objection. The phrase “form of the verdict” may arise in three distinct set of cases: (1) where the form of the verdict provided to the jury was allegedly in error (see e.g., Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 724 S.E.2d 366 (2012); Anthony v. Gator Cochran Const., 288 Ga. 79, 702 S.E.2d 139 (2010)); (2) the way in which the jury wrote the verdict was allegedly in error (see, e.g., Williams v. State, 46 Ga. 647 (1872); Wilkes v. State, 210 Ga.App. 898, 437 S.E.2d 837 (1993)); or (3) the substance of the verdict was allegedly in error. See, e.g., Ray v. Stinson, 254 Ga. 375, 329 S.E.2d 502 (1985); Smith v. State, 282 Ga.App. 339, 638 S.E.2d 791 (2006); Evans v. Maiuro, 170 Ga.App. 672, 318 S.E.2d 69 (1984).