Court Opinion

ID: 9775419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:58:05.270093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:26.011700
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
Respectfully, I dissent from that portion of the Majority Opinion affirming Perdue’s convictions for complicity to murder and complicity to first-degree arson.
There was sufficient evidence to prove that Perdue was contacted to find a killer, that he supplied a killer, and that he came back after the crime to demand payment of a finders fee plus the killer’s pay from Sue Melton, Herbert Cannon’s ex-wife. There was also sufficient evidence to place Perdue in the death eligible class because it was murder for profit. KRS 532.025(2)(a)(4).
However, there was insufficient evidence to allow the jury to find Perdue guilty of complicity to commit first-degree arson in the guilt phase, or to submit arson to the jury as an aggravating factor in the penalty phase. The guilt phase complicity to commit first-degree arson instruction stated the jury would find Perdue guilty if the jury believed *171beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following1:
(a) That ... Perdue aided and assisted codefendants ... in committing the offense of Arson in the first degree by destroying an automobile owned by Herbert Cannon by fire, by procuring the services of Frank Eldred in setting the fire, by facilitating the payment for said services, if any, by planning the commission and the offense of arson in the first degree and by standing in immediate readiness to come to the aid and assistance of his codefendants in carrying out the arson, if any;
(b) That one or more of the ... co-conspirators started the fire intentionally;
(c) That in so aiding and assisting the ... codefendants, it was his intent to damage or destroy the automobile owned by Herbert Cannon; AND
(d) At the time any one or more of the co-conspirators set the fire, the automobile was occupied, or the defendant had reason to believe the automobile might be occupied.
There was no proof Perdue conspired ahead of time to arrange how the killing would be carried out. Although he may have planned the murder of Cannon, there is no substantial evidence he had any knowledge of the method to be used beforehand, or that he participated in any of the planning leading up to the killing except to link up Eldred with Melton. Thus, there was no evidence from which the jury could determine it was Per-due’s intent to damage or destroy Cannon’s automobile, nor was there any evidence from which the jury could find he planned the commission and the offense of arson. Since even the Commonwealth admitted Perdue was not present the night of the killing, how he could have been “standing in immediate readiness to come to the aid and assistance of his codefendants in carrying out the arson,” is a mystery.
Thus, I would reverse because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of guilty of complicity to commit first-degree arson. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to submit arson as an aggravator during the penalty phase. Because I believe the evidence was insufficient to find Perdue guilty of complicity to arson, I would not reach the issue of whether Perdue’s prosecution for both murder and arson constituted double jeopardy.
In a taped conversation between Perdue and Cynthia Moore, Moore pretended she wanted Perdue’s advice and assistance with the murder of her husband. Moore indicated that she knew all about Cannon’s murder and Eldred’s and Perdue’s involvement in it. Moore repeated several statements which she attributed to Eldred, who was not present during the conversation. Although the Commonwealth’s theory was that the conversation with Moore was about the murder of Cannon, Herbert Cannon’s name was never mentioned on the tape, nor was his murder. This tape-recorded conversation should have been excluded from Perdue’s case as irrelevant because it did not prove complicity to murder.
During the conversation, Perdue said several times that “it got done,” the Commonwealth’s theory being that the “it” referred to was Cannon’s murder. At one point, Per-due stated “we got it done,” but, in context and under the Commonwealth’s theory, the statement was no more than proof after the fact that a murder had been accomplished. During closing argument, the prosecutor made several references to the tape, prejudi-cially misquoting Perdue as saying “I got it done.” This misstatement of the evidence turned the conversation into a confession by Perdue and was reversible error.
STUMBO, J., joins.

. I have highlighted the pertinent portions.