The fact that one coconspirator is acquitted does not require the reversal of a conviction for a remaining coconspirator. The so-called “rule of consistency” is a vestige of the past with no continuing validity. As long as substantial evidence supports the verdict as to one defendant, the verdict may stand despite an inconsistent verdict as to another defendant. There may be many satisfactory explanations to inconsistent verdicts, including differing evidence and compromise. Therefore, where Price and Palmer had both been charged with attempted premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and Palmer was acquitted of both the premeditation allegation and the conspiracy count, Price was still properly convicted on all counts, since he did not claim that the conviction lacked evidentiary support.