cert. denied, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980), cited in Butler, 335 Md. at 254, 643 A.2d at 397. Thus, in the instant case, Woodson has the burden of establishing that the jury actually decided an issue in his favor on the possession count which would prevent relitigation of that issue in a trial on Count 2, possession with intent to distribute. It is clear from the record of the proceedings in the instant case that Woodson has not met his burden. No verdict was actually delivered on the possession count in the instant case. Because the jury did not render a verdict on the possession count, there is no judgment from which findings of fact in favor of Woodson can be inferred. See Schiro v. Farley, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 783, 792, 127 L.Ed.2d 47, 60-61 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Collateral estoppel requires a finding that
holding procedural error is harmless where the court would have reached the same result had the guidelines issue been decided the other way and the sentence imposed would be reasonable even if contested issue decided in defendants favor holding that a civil claim is barred by collateral estoppel even though the prior adjudication was in criminal proceedings and the parties are not the same because the matters were actually litigated and decided in the prior trial holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars readjudication of issues when 1 the prior suit resulted in judgment on the merits 2 identical issues are involved 3 the issue was actually litigated 4 the issue was actually determined and 5 the determination was necessary to the resulting judgment holding that the failure to return a verdict does not have collateral estoppel effect  unless the record establishes that the issue was actually and necessarily decided in the defendants favor holding that law of the case acts as a bar only when the issue in question was actually considered and decided by the first court