Thе defendant James Earl Manning entered pleas of guilty to aiding and abetting solicitation to commit murder, second-degrеe murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years with the sentencеs running concurrently. Defendant appeals.
The State’s evidence tends to show that in 1987 the defendant began a sexual affair with Sandra Faye White, then the wife of the deceased victim, Bobby White. This extramarital relationship continued fоr several months. During this period the defendant and Sandra White conspired to have Mr. White killed and did eventually solicit the defendant’s first cousin, James Alton Mobley, to kill Mr. White in exchange for $35,000. Pursuant to this agreement, Mobley killed Mr. White. The State also рroduced evidence tending to prove the defendant and Sandra White intended to live off the proceeds of the victim’s estate and insurance policy. The trial court found as a nonstatutory aggravating factor that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. The trial court declined defendant’s request that a mitigating factor should be considеred since the defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the commission of the offenses.
The issues presented are: I) whether the trial court erred in finding as a nonstatutory aggravating factor that the сrimes were committed for pecuniary gain; and II) whether the trial court erred in failing to find as a statutory mitigating factor thаt defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the commission of the offenses.
I
The defendant argues the trial court erred in considering pecuniary gain as a
nonstatutory
aggravating factor in sentencing. The Statе provided evidence that the defendant hoped to share in the life insurance proceeds payable upon the victim’s death to Ms. White as well as enjoy other benefits from the decedent’s estate. However, the Statе produced no evidence tending to prove the defendant was hired or paid to commit the offense. From this it is сlear the trial judge could not have considered pecuniary gain as a
statutory
aggravating factor since the Fair Sentencing Act allows consideration of this factor only where “[t]he defendant
*504
was hired or paid to commit the offense.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(1)(c) (1988);
see, e.g., State v. Abdulla,
We must therefore determine whether pecuniary gain may be used as a nonstatutory aggravating factоr even though, on the facts of this case, it would not have been allowed as a statutory aggravating factor. The trial court “may consider any aggravating . . . factors that he finds are proved by the preponderance of the еvidence, and that are reasonably related to the purpose of sentencing . . .” even though not enumerated on the statutory list. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4;
State v. Thompson,
The aggravating factor asserted herе does not relate to the nature of the injury. Rather it relates to the defendant’s culpability and motivation. The Statе argues that pecuniary gain, when present as a motivation for the crime, may be considered by the trial court аs a nonstatutory aggravating factor. We find this argument unconvincing.
The North Carolina Legislature has indicated that peсuniary gain may be considered as an aggravating factor only in very peculiar circumstances. In essence, thе “hired or paid” language of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(l)(c) requires the criminal act occur as a result of a bargained for arrangеment.
See Abdulla,
*505
A trial court should not be allowed to assign in aggravation a factоr as nonstatutory where the statute clearly prohibits its use as a statutory aggravating factor.
See State v. Puckett,
II
The defendant also argues the trial court erred by failing to consider as a statutory mitigating factor that the defendant played a minor role or was a passive pаrticipant in the commission of the crimes. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(2)(c) (1988). The trial court’s failure to take into consideration uncontradicted and manifestly credible evidence of a mitigating factor is reversible error.
State v. Jones,
Here, the State’s еvidence tended to prove that the defendant actively participated in planning the murder and took part in the attempted cover-up. Also, the State produced some evidence tending to prove that defendаnt assisted in the search for an assassin. We conclude the State’s evidence contradicted defendant’s evidence sufficiently to preclude consideration of this mitigating factor.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.