v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 278 (Alaska Ct.App.1991); Stone v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 503, 183 Cal.Rptr. 647, 646 P.2d 809, 820 (1982); State v. Tate, 256 Conn. 262, 773 A.2d 308, 323-24 (2001); State v. Pugliese, 120 N.H. 728, 422 A.2d 1319, 1321 (1980); State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, 1149 (1977), overruled on other grounds by State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981); Oliver v. Justices of the N.Y. Supreme Court, 36 N.Y.2d 53, 364 N.Y.S.2d 874, 324 N.E.2d 348, 351 (1974). Additionally, at least another eight states have caselaw that assumes the validity of accepting a partial verdict, which would indicate that these states have some procedure by which a partial verdict can be accepted. See Andrade v. Superior Court, 183 Ariz. 113, 901 P.2d 461, 462 (App.1995) (<HOLDING>); People v. Krogul, 115 Ill.App.3d 734, 70
holding that when the jury acquitted the defendant on the greater offense but deadlocked on the lesserincluded offenses double jeopardy did not bar retrial of the lessers holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense holding double jeopardy did not bar retrial where a jury could not render a verdict and a mistrial was granted holding that court of appealss remedy on remand from reversal for harmful charge error based on failure to meet second step of rousseau lesserincludedoffense test was to remand for a retrial for the lesser offense  because the jurys verdict that the appellant was guilty of the lesserincluded offense  operates as an acquittal of the greater offense  to which jeopardy had attached this prevents a retrial for the greater offense but not for the lesser offense holding double jeopardy prohibition not applicable where jury unable to agree on greater charge but convicts on lesserincluded offense because no implied acquittal occurred on greater offense