State v. Ladd

• Decision Date: 11 December 2001
• Docket Number: No. 28853.,28853.
• Citation: 557 S.E.2d 820,210 W.Va. 413
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Robin LADD, Defendant Below, Appellant.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

557 S.E.2d 820

210 W.Va. 413

STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v.Robin LADD, Defendant Below, Appellant.

No. 28853.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted October 2, 2001.

Decided December 11, 2001.

Rebecca L. Stafford, Esq., Prosecuting Attorney, Ripley, West Virginia, Attorney for Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Harry G. Deitzler, Esq., Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Defendant Below, Appellant.MAYNARD, Justice:

The defendant, Robin Ladd, appeals her convictions in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of first degree murder and two counts of conspiracy to commit murder.She was sentenced to life in the penitentiary without mercy for the murder conviction and two consecutive indeterminate terms of one to five years for the conspiracy convictions.After careful consideration of the issues, we reverse and remand.

I.STATEMENT OF FACTS

On October 20, 1998, Richard Ladd was murdered in his home in Jackson County, West Virginia.Oliver "Buddy" Jarrell and Jill Hodge were hiding in the Ladd residence when Richard Ladd arrived home from work.Jarrell shot Ladd once in the chest with a 30-caliber rifle.

Buddy Jarrell was subsequently convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the death of Richard Ladd.Jill Hodge pled guilty to second degree murder, and Charlie Hodge, Jill's father, pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter.Robin Ladd, Richard Ladd's wife, defendant below and appellant herein, was charged, in the first count of the indictment, with first-degree murder.The second count of the indictment alleged an agreement between the defendant, Charlie Hodge, Jill Hodge, and Buddy Jarrell to kill Richard Ladd.The third count alleged an agreement for the same purpose between the defendant and Allen Mitchell, an acquaintance of the defendant.

The defendant's trial occurred over several days in March 2000.The State's theory of the case was that the defendant and Charlie Hodge were lovers who planned to kill Richard Ladd so that the defendant would acquire her husband's farm and life insurance proceeds which amounted to in excess of $800,000.00.To carry out the plan, the defendant and Charlie Hodge allegedly hired Charlie Hodge's daughter, Jill, and her friend Buddy Jarrell, for $5000.00 each.The defendant, her two children, Anna, nine years of age, and Matthew, fourteen years of age, and Charlie Hodge were in Parkersburg watching a movie when the murder occurred.Charlie Hodge discovered Richard Ladd's body when he, the defendant, and the children arrived back at the Ladd residence late that evening.

In order to prove the first two counts of the indictment, first degree murder and the agreement with the Hodges and Jarrell, the State presented the testimony of Charlie Hodge and Jill Hodge who claimed that the defendant participated with them in the plan to kill her husband.Beth Burgess, Jill Hodge's paramour, testified that she witnessed a conversation between the defendant, Charlie Hodge, and Jill Hodge, in which they discussed killing Richard Ladd.

Allen Mitchell was not a witness at the defendant's trial.Instead, the State was permitted to introduce a written statement that Mitchell gave to law enforcement officers, to present the in court testimony of these officers as to the contents of Mitchell's statement, and to play the audiotape interview in which Mitchell gave his statement.Mitchell's statement indicated that he and the defendant had been involved in a sexual relationship and that they had devised several plans to kill the defendant's husband.The State also produced a homemade silencer seized from Mitchell's residence and test results indicating that marks on the silencer matched those found on a bench vice located on the Ladd farm.Finally, the State introduced an out-of-court statement of Linda Ankeney, Allen Mitchell's first cousin, in which Ankeney stated that Mitchell disclosed to her his and the defendant's plans to kill Richard Ladd.

The defendant testified and denied any involvement in her husband's murder.Specifically, she characterized her relationship with Charlie Hodge as that of "father-daughter."She admitted a brief sexual relationship with Allen Mitchell, but denied that they planned to kill her husband.

At the close of the evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Richard Ladd, as alleged in the first count of the indictment, conspiracy to commit the felony offense of murder with Charlie Hodge, Jill Hodge, and Buddy Jarrell, as alleged in the second count of the indictment, and conspiracy to commit the felony offense of murder with Allen Mitchell, as alleged in the third count of the indictment.By order of April 3, 2000, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for acquittal and for a new trial, and sentenced the defendant to life in the penitentiary, without mercy, on the murder conviction, and two consecutive terms of one to five years on the conspiracy convictions.The defendant now appeals to this Court.

II.DISCUSSION

A.Sufficiency of the Evidence

First, we address the defendant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict on count one of the indictment, first-degree murder, and on count two of the indictment, conspiracy to commit the felony offense of murder with the Hodges and Jarrell.¹To support her argument, the defendant points to the fact that Buddy Jarrell's statement does not implicate the defendant in the murder of Richard Ladd.²Also, the defendant argues that Charlie Hodge and Jill Hodge implicated the defendant only after receiving plea bargains.Finally, the defendant asserts that the trial testimony of these two alleged co-conspirators was contradictory.The State counters that the verdict was supported by overwhelming evidence because a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regarding challenges to the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict, this Court has said:

The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Syllabus Point 1, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163(1995).Further,

[a] criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden.An appellate court must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury might have drawn in favor of the prosecution.The evidence need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Credibility determinations are for a jury and not an appellate court.Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.To the extent that our prior cases are inconsistent, they are expressly overruled.

Syllabus Point 3, id.

First-degree murder is a "willful, deliberate and premeditated killing."W.Va. Code § 61-2-1(1991).Evidence at trial indicated that Buddy Jarrell willfully, deliberately, and premeditatedly killed Richard Ladd.Our law says that "every accessory before the fact[ ] shall be punish[ed] as if he were the principal in the first degree[.]"W.Va.Code § 61-11-6(1923).This Court has stated:

Where a defendant is convicted of a particular substantive offense, the test of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction necessarily involves consideration of the traditional distinctions between parties to offenses.Thus, a person may be convicted of a crime so long as the evidence demonstrates that he acted as an accessory before the fact, as a principal in the second degree, or as a principal in the first degree in the commission of such offense.

Syllabus Point 8, State v. Fortner, 182 W.Va. 345, 387 S.E.2d 812(1989).Therefore, a person found to be an accessory before the fact to a first degree murder may be convicted of first degree murder.

An accessory before the fact is a person who being absent at the time and place of the crime, procures, counsels, commands, incites, assists or abets another person to commit the crime, and absence at the time and place of the crime is an essential element of the status of an accessory before the fact.

Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Brown v. Thompson, 149 W.Va. 649, 142 S.E.2d 711(1965), overruled in part on other grounds byState v. Petry,166 W.Va. 153, 273 S.E.2d 346(1980).

Charlie Hodge and Jill Hodge testified that the defendant asked Charlie Hodge to find someone to kill her husband, and that Charlie Hodge approached Jill Hodge with this request.As a result, Jill Hodge procured Buddy Jarrell to perform the killing.In return for the killing, the defendant offered to pay money to Jill Hodge and Buddy Jarrell.The Hodges further testified that the defendant discussed the proposed killing on several occasions and helped plan it.Finally, the evidence indicated that the defendant was not present during the killing, but was in Parkersburg watching a movie.We believe that a rational trier of fact could have found from this evidence the essential elements of accessory before the fact to first degree murder which, as stated above, permits the defendant to be found guilty of first degree murder.

Concerning the conspiracy conviction in count...