California Arson Criminal Offense General Intent Crime Lawyers Attorneys
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL HYUN LEE, Defendant and Appellant.
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX
September 22, 1994, Decided
Ventura County Sheriff's Officer John Steele was called to the scene of a fire in a residence. When he entered the house, he had difficulty seeing due to the smoke. When he called out, appellant responded and emerged from within the house. Officer Steele questioned appellant outside the house and appellant said that he had started fires in his bedroom and by the front door. He said several times that his reason for setting the fires was to kill himself. Appellant appeared confused and seemed to respond somewhat strangely. He gave contradictory answers about whether he intended to kill himself and whether he knew where he lived. The officer thought appellant had mental problems. The criminal proceedings were suspended at one point when the court declared appellant incompetent under section 1368. When appellant was returned to court, proceedings were instituted to appoint the public guardian for him. The county fire department investigator testified at the
preliminary hearing that he found at least three distinct intentional fires set; one inside the entry door, two in a bedroom, and a possible fourth on the seat of a chair. There was fire damage to the front door and to some drywall, to the curtains, and to the carpet in the bedroom. Appellant's counsel moved the court in limine to instruct that the arson was a specific intent crime and to allow defense counsel to introduce psychiatric testimony regarding whether appellant had formed the specific intent. The Superior Court of Ventura County California convicted him of arson of an inhabited structure or property and arson of property of another in violation of Cal. Penal Code 451(b) and Cal. Penal Code 451(d).
Appellant sought review of a judgment and claimed that the trial court erred in holding that arson of a structure was a general intent crime.
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in holding that arson of a structure was a general intent crime?
The Court state that maliciously means a wish to vex, defraud, annoy, or injure another person, or intent to do a wrongful act willfully, according to section 7, subdivision 1, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage. Appellant did not have to specifically intend for the house to burn to be
guilty of arson. Appellant set three or four fires in different places inside the house and admitted that he had started the fires. Moreover, appellant's argument is unpersuasive that if he intended to kill himself by setting the fires, he is not necessarily guilty of arson, especially if he did not intend to burn the house. Appellant assumes that somehow he intended to kill himself without burning the house. There is no evidence to support that theory. Even assuming appellant set the fires for the purpose of killing himself, his intent under his own reasoning would have been to burn the house as a means of achieving his goal. Hence the trial court was correct in holding that arson of a structure is not a specific intent crime.
Conclusion:
This court affirmed appellant's
conviction for arson of an inhabited structure or property and arson of property of another. The court found that arson was a general intent crime, and as such, appellant did not have to intend specifically for the house to burn to be guilty of arson.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
California Arson Criminal Offense General Intent Crime Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
California First Degree Murder Premeditation Confrontation Forensic Certificate Expert DNA Lawyers Attorneys California Obscene Material Criminal Offense Minors Burglary Videotape Lawyers Attorneys North Carolina Driving Under Influence Traffic Offense High Rate Speed Lawyers Attorneys Finding Best Lawyer For Debts Everything you need to know before hiring an IRS tax lawyer! How Can I Create Wealth in Retirement Criminal Defense Lawyer: What Do They Really Do Criminal Defense Lawyer Los Angeles: Wondering What They Can Achieve For You? Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Association: Why Are They So Important Living as Being a Criminal Defense Lawyer In Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer: How The Heck Do You Pick One Getting a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a Drunk Driving Charge A Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Assist You Defend Against a Misdemeanor Charge