In Davidson v. State, 975 P.2d 67, 73-74 (Alaska App. 1999) the Court found no error in the court's decision to question jurors about inconsistent verdicts convicting the defendant of the charged offense but acquitting him of two lesser-included offenses. After the defendant moved for a new trial based on this inconsistency, the trial judge in written interrogatories asked the jurors to clarify their decision; in response, the jurors indicated that they had mistakenly believed they were required to acquit the defendant of the lesser charges if they convicted him of the primary charge. The Court ruled that Evidence Rule 606(b) permitted such an inquiry, and upheld the jury's verdict.