Background
Surveillance footage showed Mardeontae Lee pouring gasoline on grass around Annie Grace’s occupied home and later lighting a paper bag. Lee told police that another person had been paid to burn the house in retaliation for a killing committed by Grace’s son. Lee said he participated because he feared for his life but intended only to appear to comply, not to burn the home or kill anyone. The gasoline did not ignite, and neither the home nor any nearby structure was damaged.
A jury convicted Lee of aggravated arson and three counts of attempted first-degree murder. The Louisiana First Circuit affirmed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the aggravated-arson conviction lacked sufficient evidence. Reading Louisiana’s aggravated-arson statute together with the fire-marshal statutes and applying the rule of lenity, the majority concluded that a “movable” means a movable facility or enclosure in which at least 50 people may assemble. A paper bag did not qualify, and the State presented no evidence that Lee set fire to a structure, watercraft, or qualifying movable. Because the charging instrument did not permit simple-arson responsive verdicts and attempted aggravated arson was not a responsive verdict, the court entered an acquittal.
The majority also held that the State’s circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that Lee lacked the specific intent to kill required for attempted first-degree murder. It relied on Lee’s statements that he intended only to make his participation appear genuine, along with evidence that he dropped the burning paper away from the gasoline, received no payment, appeared distraught during questioning, and caused no property damage. The remaining authorized responsive offenses either lacked evidentiary support or also required specific intent to kill, so the court entered acquittals on all three attempted-murder counts and remanded with instructions to discharge Lee.
Chief Justice Weimer concurred, reasoning that the objective evidence showed Lee neither intended to burn the home or kill its occupants nor performed the act needed to ignite the gasoline. Justice Burris dissented in part, joined in that position by Justices McCallum and Cole. Burris agreed that the aggravated-arson conviction should be reversed but concluded that a rational jury could infer an intent to kill from Lee’s conduct and reject his explanation; she would have affirmed the three attempted first-degree-murder convictions and their sentences.
Key Takeaways
- A burned paper bag was not a “movable” within the aggravated-arson statute as the majority construed that term.
- The majority found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to exclude Lee’s reasonable claim that he never specifically intended to kill the home’s occupants.
- The court entered acquittals rather than ordering a new trial because no supported, statutorily authorized lesser responsive verdict remained.
- The attempted-murder ruling divided the court: Chief Justice Weimer concurred, while Justices Burris, McCallum, and Cole dissented in part.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the rule of lenity to narrow the property covered by Louisiana’s aggravated-arson statute and emphasizes that attempted murder requires proof of a specific intent to kill, not merely dangerous or criminal conduct. It also illustrates how charging decisions and Louisiana’s statutory responsive-verdict rules can require outright acquittal when the evidence does not establish the charged offenses.
The divided treatment of the attempted-murder counts highlights a disagreement over appellate sufficiency review: the majority found Lee’s hypothesis of innocence reasonable and unexcluded, while the partial dissent would have deferred to the jury’s rejection of his explanation.