Opinion ID: 1242733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support a Capital Murder Conviction

Text: Except in the case of murder for hire, only the actual perpetrator of the crime may be convicted of capital murder. Johnson v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 146, 149, 255 S.E.2d 525, 527 (1979), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 920, 102 S.Ct. 422, 70 L.Ed.2d 231 (1981). Thus, neither an accessory before the fact nor a principal in the second degree may be so convicted. Coppola v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 243, 256, 257 S.E.2d 797, 806 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1103, 100 S.Ct. 1069, 62 L.Ed.2d 788 (1980). This rule is mandated by statute: In the case of every felony, every principal in the second degree and every accessory before the fact may be indicted, tried, convicted and punished in all respects as if a principal in the first degree; provided, however, that except in the case of a killing for hire under the provisions of § 18.2-31(b) an accessory before the fact or principal in the second degree to a capital murder shall be indicted, tried, convicted and punished as though the offense were murder in the first degree. Code § 18.2-18 (emphasis added). The Commonwealth has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that one accused of capital murder was the actual perpetrator of the crime. Suspicion of guilt, however strong, or even a probability of guilt, is insufficient to support a conviction. Bishop, 227 Va. at 170, 313 S.E.2d at 393; Stover, 222 Va. at 624, 283 S.E.2d at 197; Webb v. Commonwealth, 204 Va. 24, 34, 129 S.E.2d 22, 29 (1963). When the sufficiency of the evidence is an issue on appeal, an appellate court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Stockton v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 124, 145-46, 314 S.E.2d 371, 385, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984). Thus, a trial court's judgment should be affirmed unless the evidence does not support it. Id. Cheng contends that the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a conviction of capital murder. He says that the evidence at best shows that he was involved in the homicide. Cheng asserts that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he fired the shots that killed Liu. The evidence shows that Cheng masterminded the criminal plan. He expressed an intent to commit robbery. He directed his accomplices to obtain the sawed-off shotgun. He was seen talking with Liu on the evening Liu was last seen alive. He possessed a .32 caliber semi-automatic pistol  the type weapon used to kill Liu. Additionally, Cheng made incriminating statements to Officer Kwan. Clearly, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Cheng was a principal in the second degree to a capital murder. The crucial question, however, is whether all the circumstances, coupled with Kwan's testimony, are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cheng actually fired the fatal shots. In his direct testimony, Kwan stated that [Cheng] told me that there's a man who put the contract on him and they had to get rid of him. (Emphasis added.) On cross-examination, Kwan, reading from a transcript of his prior testimony, stated, [Cheng] did not say direct that he [was] involved with the crimes, but he told me that he had to do it because the man had put the contract on him. (Emphasis added.) It is not surprising that Kwan was uncertain as to Cheng's exact words because Kwan neither recorded nor made notes of Cheng's statements. More remarkably, Kwan did not press Cheng to state who fired the fatal shots. Could the jury reasonably and fairly have inferred from the statement, he had to do it, that Cheng fired the fatal shots? Even when viewed in light of all the surrounding circumstances, we do not think such an inference is justified, especially when there were three known participants in the crimes. The evidence, at most, creates a strong suspicion that Cheng was the trigger man. As previously stated, however, suspicion of guilt, no matter how strong, is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. Stover, 222 Va. at 624, 283 S.E.2d at 197. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is insufficient to support Cheng's conviction of capital murder.