Two friends enter Wal-Mart each holding a lighter. They get some Lysol aerosol cans and light the spray on fire turning them into torches. In the magazine aisle, one of the magazines began to smoke after being hit by one of the flames. The two friends then run out of the store and the store burns down to the ground. Luckily, no one was hurt. What can the two friends be charged with?
State in the Interest of M.C., Lodi: National Wholesale Liquidators (App. Div. 2000) The Court found that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Appellate Division emphasized that third-degree arson “requires as its first element proof that the accused ‘purposely start[ed] a fire.’ 2C:17-1b.” As was held in State in the Interest of M.N., the accused must purposely start the fire, not merely ignite something capable of causing the fire. Although an aerosol-can-torch may be more dangerous than a lighter, the can’s spray did nothing more than extend the flame, and M.C. was not charged or tried for setting the contents of the can on fire. Since the flame from M.C.’s torch touched nothing, he did not set the fire. Therefore, he was not guilty of either count of arson. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge of failing to report or control a dangerous fire, 2C:17-1c.(2). This offense requires proof that the “fire was started, albeit lawfully, by [the accused] or with his assent, or on property in his custody or control.” Since the court found that the fire started without M.C.’s knowledge, “it can hardly be said that it was started with his assent.”
State in the Interest of M.C., Lodi: National Wholesale Liquidators (App. Div. 2000) The Court found that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Appellate Division emphasized that third-degree arson “requires as its first element proof that the accused ‘purposely start[ed] a fire.’ 2C:17-1b.” As was held in State in the Interest of M.N., the accused must purposely start the fire, not merely ignite something capable of causing the fire. Although an aerosol-can-torch may be more dangerous than a lighter, the can’s spray did nothing more than extend the flame, and M.C. was not charged or tried for setting the contents of the can on fire. Since the flame from M.C.’s torch touched nothing, he did not set the fire. Therefore, he was not guilty of either count of arson. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge of failing to report or control a dangerous fire, 2C:17-1c.(2). This offense requires proof that the “fire was started, albeit lawfully, by [the accused] or with his assent, or on property in his custody or control.” Since the court found that the fire started without M.C.’s knowledge, “it can hardly be said that it was started with his assent.”