Fire

Crime

A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully (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) and maliciously (a wish to vex, defraud, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law) sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property.

A person is guilty of unlawfully causing a fire when he recklessly (a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his or her act will set fire to, burn, or cause to burn a structure, forest land, or property. The risk shall be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto) sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned, any structure, forest land or property.

Arson: CALCRIM 1515 Someone acts maliciously when he or she intentionally does a wrongful act or when he or she acts with the unlawful intent to defraud, annoy, or injure someone else

Harm	Code	PC451 penalty	PC452 penalty	Notes
Causing GBI	PC451(a), PC452(a)	5-7-9 serious, violent prison	2-4-6 prison wobbler
Habitation	PC451(b), PC452(b)	3-5-8 serious, violent prison	2-3-4 prison wobbler
Structure of forest land	PC451(c), PC452(c)	2-4-6 serious prison	16-2-3 prison wobbler
Property	PC451(d), PC452(d)	16-2-3 serious prison	6-month max misdemeanor

Enhancement

Prior arson can be used for nickel, strike, and +3-4-5. (People v. Jones (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 853.)

Immigration

Arson under PC451 is not an aggravated felony, because of the lack of mens rea requirement, that makes the California crime broader than the federal crime of arson.

"we conclude that Togonon's conviction under § 451(b) does not categorically match the offense proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)."

Togonon v. Garland (2022) 23 F.4th 876

Abandoned/Discarded Property

In re L.T. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 262

Caselaw

In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020

451 requires only “a general intent to willfully commit the act of setting on fire under such circumstances that the direct, natural, and highly probable consequences would be the burning of the relevant structure or property.” Id., 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d at 984. The defendants in V.V. did not need to “know or be subjectively aware that the fire [on the forest property] would be the probable consequence of their acts.” Id., 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d at 985 (emphasis added).

that subjective awareness of the risk that forest land would be burned was not required for conviction. Id., 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d at 985.

People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76

Defendant said he was going down victim's house. Defendant's brother's truck seen driving by victim's house before it's on fire. Defendant's wallet and empty beer cans found at scene of fire. Defendant admitted he was trying to burn some weeds and it got out of control. Fire marshall's opinion is that it was intentionally set.

“When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. This intention is deemed to be a general criminal intent. When the definition refers to defendant's intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent.” ***743 (Hood, supra, 1 Cal.3d at pp. 456–457, 82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370.)

Stonewall disapproved. Stonewall is juveniles intentionally set fire to leaves, which went out of control and damaged school. Stonewall said 451 is specific intent, 452 is general intent, and 452 is LIO of 451.

Glover, Fry, and Lopez all follow Stonewall.

Bolden does not.

People v. Shiga (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 466

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 921

People v. Fry (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1334

People v. Torres (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 849

Mason v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 773

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220

People v. Brooks ( )

People v. Bolden (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 707

People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404