DOCSLIB.ORG

Arson in Maryland a New Legal Approach Robert W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arson in Maryland a New Legal Approach Robert W University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 12 Article 3 Number 3 Spring 1982 1982 Arson In Maryland A New Legal Approach Robert W. Glowinski Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Glowinski, Robert W. (1982) "Arson In Maryland A New Legal Approach," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 12: No. 3, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol12/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORUM Arson law, such as kitchens, shops, barns or In Maryland stables. While other jurisdictions have held a dwelling house to include jails A New Legal Approach State v. Whitmore, 147 Mo. 78, 47 S.W. by Robert W. Glowinski 1068 (1898) and schoolhouses, Wallace v. Young, 21 Ky. 155 (1827), the Courts in Maryland have not been called upon to make such distinctions. The provision in Maryland cover- In 1809, the State of Maryland State Arson Laws ing the illegal burning of buildings attempted to codify its criminal laws Codification of arson from the other than dwelling houses can be for the first time. (1809 Md. Laws ch. common law has not been uniformly found in the second arson statute, 138). Prior to this time crimes were accomplished among the states. Most MD. ANN. CODE. art. 27, §7 (1982 dealt with under the common law. state arson statutes are derived from rep. vol.). Originally specifying spe- This act, however, concerned itself two existing model laws: the Model cific buildings, this statute primarily with providing punishments has evolved Arson Law developed by the National into a "catch-all" statute for certain crimes. covering all Fire Protection Association (NFPA) buildings not specified in section In particular, the statute relating to 6. It and revised by the National Board of is not necessary arson referenced only the common that the building be Fire Underwriters (NBFU) based upon usable for some useful purpose law crime and provided for the pun- or common law or the Model Penal that it be intended ishment of hanging or alternatively 5 for use and occu- Code of the American Law Institute. pancy. Brown v. State, 39 Md. App. 497, to 20 years in the penitentiary. Other Arson statutes in Maryland are sim- 388 A.2d 130 (1978), rev'd punishments were delineated for the on other ilar in principal to the model law of grounds, 285 Md. 469, burning of specified properties and 403 A.2d 789 the NBFU and NFPA. The common (1979). certain sailing vessels. In 1904 the theme among these types of statutes Again, legislature changed the use of the like the model law on which is the codification of the common law it is based these two common law definition of arson slight- sections are fol- crime in the primary arson section ly by expanding the crime to include lowed by other "arson" offenses includ- which represented the most serious ing burning of property one's own dwelling house if the intent not a building offense. The second section generally and attempted arson. in burning it was to injure or defraud. MD. ANN. CODE covers the crime of burning buildings art. 27, §§8-10 (1982 The legislature also included a res- rep. vol.). and other structures not used as tructuring of the penalties. dwellings. These provisions are fol- Corpus Delecti The first substantive attempt at lowed by other offenses including the making arson a statutory crime in To prove the crime of arson it is burning of property not a building Maryland occurred in 1929. The sta- necessary to establish two elements: and attempted arson. tute in force today in the State remains that there was a burning and that the similar. Since that fire was of incendiary origin. The time the only sec- Maryland Arson Statutes tions that have been added to the sta- extent of the burning is not impor- tute were to address cross burnings, Like the model law upon which it is tant. The slightest burning satisfies burning of trash containers, the com- based, the Maryland Arson Law codi- the element. In a particular example mission of arson while committing fies in the primary statute the com- where a molotov cocktail was thrown another crime and a changing of the mon law crime of arson, the malicious through the window of a high school, penalties. While retaining the com- burning of the dwelling of another. burning within the scope of the sta- mon law definition, what has in fact MD. ANN. CODE art. 27, §6 (1982 rep. tute was found only where paint on changed is the delineation of those vol.). Similar to its precursor, the sta- the window and a venetian blind cord items that if burned intentionally will tute does not include a requirement had been burned. Fulford v. State, 8 Md. constitute arson, and the expansion that the structure be occupied. How- App. 270, 259 A.2d 551 (1969). It is of of laws dealing with arson related ever, structures in this section need vital importance, however, that the crimes such as burning to defraud an not be "of another" and must be fire from the initial burning item insurer, setting a fire during commis- potentially occupiable. somehow be communicated to the sion of other crimes and attempted At common law a, "dwelling house" structure or property itself. Hines v. arson. was not only the mansion house but State, 34 Md. App. 612, 368 A.2d 509 "all outhouses which Taking a closer look at the arson were a parcel (1977). laws as they exist today in Maryland thereof." Smith v. State, 31 Md. App. The second element of the corpus we can compare their requirements 106, 355 A.2d 527 (1976). Maryland delecti of arson is the showing of an with other arson laws, especially the has specified in its arson statute a incendiary origin. By statute in Mary- model laws and evaluate their ade- number of buildings that are to be land, there is still a requirement for quacy in meeting their purpose. considered part of the dwelling by willful and malicious burning, as was XII/3 the case at common law. The effect of billion lost, through destruction of classified into aggravated arson, arson, this requirement is to render insuffi- buildings. Federal Emergency Man- reckless burning or exploding, and cient a showing of either carelessness agement Agency, U.S. Fire Adminis- failure to control or report a danger- or negligence on the part of the tration, "Arson - The Federal Role in ous fire. Attempted arson is placed in accused. The prosecution must show Arson Prevention and Control," report section 100.5. there was criminal intent or negli- to Congress, August, 1979, p. v-vii. gence constituting intent under the Add to this the tax revenues lost and Comparison With law. the dollar losses are multiplied many Maryland Statute times. The National Fire Protection Within the context of arson, the In Maryland, the most severe pen- courts of many jurisdictions have Association reported that the number alties are provided for arson to a dwell- defined willful and malicious as used of incendiary and suspicious fires in ing house, while arson of other build- at common law or in respective sta- the United States increased from 5,600 ings is a lesser felony. The MAPL, on tutes. Many states find malice implicit in 1951 to 177,000 in 1978. Carter, the other hand, removes the require- in all intentional burnings. Maryland "Arson and Arson Investigation in ment that the building be a dwelling rejected this concept when the Court the United States," 74 Fire J. 40 (July and substitutes the requirement for of Appeals, reversing the Court of 1980). These statistics are a clear indi- either occupancy or causing a death Special Appeals, held that willful and cation of the direction the problem is either directly or indirectly. malicious were independent of each taking both in Maryland and the U.S. The underlying premise of the Mary- other and that malice could not be The National Commission on Fire land statute is to protect property. inferred simply from the willfulness Prevention and Control charged that The Court of Appeals noted in Wimp- of one's actions. Brown v. State, 285 Md. the NBFU model law (like the Mary- ling v. State, 171 Md. 362, 189 A. 248, 469, 403 A.2d 789 (1979). The Court land statute) has not been changed to #253 (1937), that since the Maryland of Appeals stated that malice is defined meet the modern challenges of "urban arson statutes are directed against as "an intention or desire to harm violence." As a result, efforts at devel- the burning of buildings, regardless another," while willful was something oping new laws to address what is of occupancy, the offense is against done intentionally. Malice, which must perceived as a "modern arson prob- property. MAPL, however, shifts the be present for an arson conviction, is lem" have been undertaken. emphasis of the law to the protection the intent to bring harm to another of human life. The purposes of the person and cannot be inferred simply Model Arson Penal Law two laws differ. The question, then, is from the intent to burn. However, A new "model" law has been pro- one of priority. Do we wish to deter this has now been further narrowed posed by the insurance industry to be the intentional burning of buildings, to permit malice to be inferred from referred to as the Model Arson Penal or diminish the threat which arson the setting of a fire with reckless and Law (MAPL).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Custody List **Total Inmates Does Not Include ICE Detainees **Current As Of: Total Inmates: 28 November 09, 2020 6:48 Am
    Freeborn Co Adult Detenton Center In Custody List **Total Inmates does not include ICE Detainees **Current as of: Total Inmates: 28 November 09, 2020 6:48 am Ashley, Nicholas Ryan Charge(s) Burglary-3rd Deg-Steal/Commit Felony or Gross Misd Intake Date: October 15, 2020 Intake Time: 1:05 pm Ba, La Charge(s) Drugs - 5th Degree - Possess Schedule 1,2,3,4 - Not Small Amount Marijuana Domestic Abuse - Violate Order for Intake Date: November 01, 2020 Protection Intake Time: 12:21 am Boots-Ringoen, Dominik Nikko Charge(s) Criminal Vehicular Homicide - Operate Vehicle with Negligence - Under Influence Alcohol Intake Date: August 27, 2020 Traffic - DWI - Operate Motor Vehicle - Alcohol Concentration 0.08 Within 2 Intake Time: 10:31 pm Hours Disorderly Conduct-Brawling or Fighting Criminal Vehicular Operation - Great Bodily Harm - Gross Negligence Traffic-Drivers License-Driving After Revocation Traffic - Underage drinking and driving; Crime described Burt, Adam Robert Charge(s) Assault-3rd Degree-Substantial Bodily Harm Traffic - DWI - First-Degree DWI;w/in Intake Date: February 14, 2020 10 yrs of 3 or more qualified prior impaired driving incidents Intake Time: 4:43 pm Page 1 of 6 Everet, Michael Leonard Charge(s) Harassment; Restraining Order - Violate and knows of temporary or restraining order Intake Date: November 06, 2020 Intake Time: 5:53 pm Fishel, Adam Dwayne Charge(s) Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle Traffic - DWI - Operate Motor Vehicle - Intake Date: November 01, 2020 Alcohol Concentration 0.08 Within 2 Hours Intake Time:
    [Show full text]
  • Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: a Guide for Public Safety Personnel
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice FireFire andand ArsonArson SceneScene Evidence:Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel Research Report U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Daniel Marcus Acting Associate Attorney General Mary Lou Leary Acting Assistant Attorney General Julie E. Samuels Acting Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel Written and Approved by the Technical Working Group on Fire/Arson Scene Investigation June 2000 NCJ 181584 Julie E. Samuels Acting Director David G. Boyd, Ph.D. Deputy Director Richard M. Rau, Ph.D. Project Monitor Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Message From the Attorney General ctions taken at the outset of an investigation at a fire and Aarson scene can play a pivotal role in the resolution of a case. Careful, thorough investigation is key to ensuring that potential physical evidence is not tainted or destroyed or potential witnesses overlooked.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CRIME of ARSON Paul Sadler, Jr
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 41 | Issue 3 Article 4 1950 The rC ime of Arson Paul Jr. Sadler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Paul Jr. Sadler, The rC ime of Arson, 41 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 290 (1950-1951) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE CRIME OF ARSON Paul Sadler, Jr. The following article is from a thesis the author prepared while pursuing his studies in Social Relations at Harvard University, from which he received his A.B. degree in June, -1950. Mr. Sadler is currently employed as a fire investigator adjuster for the General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Boston, Mass.-EDrroR. I The crime of arson is an extraordinarily complex one by its definition alone. Its complexity makes many difficulties to the student. It also gives the perpetrator some advantages. To begin with, arson, like murder and most admirality crimes, exists in several degrees of indict- ment. These degrees are wholly dependent upon the type and use of the structure or property burned, degree of involvement of participants, and often the time of day in which the crime is committed.' But what degrees now exist are only created by modern statutory defini- tion over and above the original common law of England, which law, in comparison with 20th century statutes, seems very defective in scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Commission of a Contemporaneous Arson, Burglary
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 49 | Number 1 Article 1 2009 Should Commission of a Contemporaneous Arson, Burglary, Kidnapping, Rape, or Robbery Be Sufficient to Make a Murderer Eligible for a Death Sentence? - An Empirical and Normative Analysis David McCord Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David McCord, Should Commission of a Contemporaneous Arson, Burglary, Kidnapping, Rape, or Robbery Be Sufficient to Make a Murderer Eligible for a Death Sentence? - An Empirical and Normative Analysis, 49 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1 (2009). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol49/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SHOULD COMMISSION OF A CONTEMPORANEOUS ARSON, BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, RAPE, OR ROBBERY BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE A MURDERER ELIGIBLE FOR A DEATH SENTENCE?-AN EMPIRICAL AND NORMATIVE ANALYSIS By David McCord* INTRODUCTION Most death penalty jurisdictions make a murderer death- eligible if the murder was committed contemporaneously with one of five felonies: arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, or robbery.1 In recent years, however, this traditional approach has been challenged by two blue-ribbon panels-the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment and the Massachusetts Governor's Council on Capital Punishment-both of which advocated abolition of these five felonies as death-eligibility aggravators.2 The stakes in this debate are high because these five felonies-hereinafter "the contemporaneous felonies"-are frequent companions of murder: over sixty percent of death-eligible defendants contemporaneously commit at least one of them,3 and robbery alone qualifies more murderers for death-eligibility than any other * Professor of Law, Drake University Law School; J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Firesetting: a Research Overview
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention J. Robert Flores, Administrator May 2005 Of fice of Justice Pr ograms • Par tnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov Juvenile Firesetting: A Message From OJJDP A Research Overview In the hands of children, fire can be a destructive force. Each year, fires set by youth claim hundreds of lives and destroy millions of dollars’ worth of Charles T. Putnam and John T. Kirkpatrick property. By understanding how and why juve­ The consequences of juvenile firesetting following project goals. First, review the niles set fires, professionals and policy- can be tragic and costly. In a typical year, existing research literature on juvenile fire- makers can make informed decisions fires set by children and youth claim the setting behavior and offer a distillation of about how best to address this harmful lives of approximately 300 people and that literature. Second, convene a confer­ behavior. destroy more than $300 million worth of ence of researchers and fire, justice, and In 2002, the National Association of property. Children are the predominant clinical professionals to provide a forum State Fire Marshals (NASFM) began for constructive discussion about existing victims of these fires, accounting for 85 developing applied research initiatives of every 100 lives lost (U.S. Fire Adminis­ and future research. Third, deliver a report to help professionals curtail juvenile tration, 1997, 2004). to NASFM in April 2003 outlining pressing firesetting. The project included a areas of new research that would directly review of the research literature, a A thorough understanding of juvenile benefit the professional community.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Residential Arson National Arson Awareness Week Media Kit May 5-11, 2013 2013 Arson Awareness Week: “Reducing Residential Arson.”
    U.S. Fire Administration Reducing Residential Arson National Arson Awareness Week Media Kit May 5-11, 2013 2013 Arson Awareness Week: “Reducing Residential Arson.” The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) and its partners Excitement will use the week of May 5-11 to focus public attention on residential arson and provide communities with Most excitement fires are nuisance fires but may esca- tools to reduce the incidence of this crime. The goal late to homes. Excitement-motivated arsonists desire for this year’s Arson Awareness Week is to provide the thrill associated with setting the fire and relish the all residents with strategies to combat arson in their attention it brings. They rarely intend to injure people neighborhoods. but don’t have the requisite knowledge to keep the fires under control. Reducing Residential Arson: Why Arson? Revenge The motivations behind the burning of homes are curiosity, vandalism, concealing another crime, excite- According to the National Center for the Analysis of ment, revenge and insurance fraud or arson for profit. Violent Crime, the most common motive (41 percent) for a serial arsonist is revenge. An arsonist will target Curiosity the home of someone in retaliation for an actual or perceived injustice against him or her. Curiosity fires are most often set by juveniles. The mis- use of fire has many variables including age, motivation Insurance Fraud or Arson for Profit for firesetting behavior, type of fires set, ignition materi- als used to set the fire, and the child’s understanding and Arson for profit is insurance fraud, a criminal method limitations of fire.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect
    The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect Daniel Ganz 21090905 UC Berkeley, Spring 2012 Legal Studies Honors Thesis Supervised by Professor Richard Perry Ganz 1 I. Abstract Most US states have a felony murder rule, which allows prosecutors to charge felons with murder for any death that occurs during and because of the commission of the felony. This allows the felon to be convicted with murder without requiring the prosecution to prove the mens rea that would otherwise be necessary for a murder conviction. Much of the legal scholarship indicates that the purpose of the felony murder rule is to deter felonies and to make felons limit their use of violence while they're committing the felony by making the felon internalize more fully the negative consequences of their actions. It's unclear whether legislatures that adopt felony murder rules are more concerned with deterring criminal behavior or making criminals less violent when committing felonies. We analyze judicial decisions to infer what judges believed were the intentions of the legislatures that adopted felony murder statutes. We also use regression analysis to determine whether felony murder statutes are correlated with lower crime rates or lower rates of the average number of deaths that occur during felonies. We do this both by modeling felony rates and rates of felony- related deaths as a function of whether a state has a felony murder rule, and by determining how felony rates and rates of felony-related deaths change when a state adopts or abolishes a felony murder rule. Our results indicate that the felony murder rule does not have a significant effect on crime rates or crime-related death rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutes of Limitation for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children (Last Updated August 2012)
    Statutes of Limitation for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children (last updated August 2012) This compilation includes statutes that establish, toll, extend, or eliminate time limitations for charging criminal offenses relating specifically to child victims. Every statute included either specifically mentions child victims or makes reference to a statute that does. This is not a statutory compilation of all criminal statute of limitations laws. General statutes of limitations that apply to all crimes without specific reference to the age of the victim or children as a class of victims are omitted. Please feel free to contact NDAA for help in ensuring compliance with all of your jurisdiction’s applicable statutes of limitation. Table of Contents: TABLE OF CONTENTS:............................................................................................................................................... 1 ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 ALA. CODE § 15-3-5 (2012). Offenses having no limitation.....................................................................................4 ALASKA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 ALASKA STAT. § 12.10.010 (2012). General time limitations...................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Client Intake Form
    Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria Tribal Victim Assistance Program Client Intake 1) Client Information: ☐ Primary Victim ☐ Secondary Victim ☐ Non-Victim Name: __________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________ DOB: ___________ Age ______ Gender Identity: ☐ M ☐ F ☐ Other: ___________ Phone: __________________ Okay to leave a message at this number ☐ Yes ☐ No Emergency Contacts: ______________________________________________________ Name Phone Relationship ______________________________________________________ Name Phone Relationship Race/Ethnicity (check all that apply) ☐ AI/AN ☐ Hispanic/Latino ☐ Black/African American ☐ Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ☐ Asian ☐ White (Non-Latino) ☐ Other Race ☐ Multiple Races Enrolled Tribal Member: ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, which Tribe: _________________________ 2) Initial Victimization Type: Indicate the primary victimization with a “P” all others with a check mark ☐ Adult physical assault (1) ☐ Human trafficking: Labor (16) ☐ Human trafficking: Sex (17) ☐ Adult sexual assault (2) ☐ Identity theft/fraud/financial crime (18) ☐ Adults sexually abused/assaulted as children (3) ☐ Kidnapping (non-custodial) (19) ☐ Arson (4) ☐ Bullying (verbal, cyber or physical) (5) ☐ Kidnapping (custodial) (20) ☐ Mass violence (domestic/international) (21) ☐ Burglary (6) ☐ Other vehicular victimization (e.g., hit and run) ☐ Child physical abuse or neglect (7) (22) ☐ Child pornography (8) ☐ Robbery (23) ☐
    [Show full text]
  • ARSON in the FOURTH DEGREE (Recklessly Damaging Property by Fire Or Explosion) Penal Law § 150.05 (Committed on Or After Sept
    ARSON IN THE FOURTH DEGREE (Recklessly Damaging Property by Fire or Explosion) Penal Law § 150.05 (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1979) The (specify) count is Arson in the Fourth Degree. Under our law, a person is guilty of Arson in the Fourth Degree when that person recklessly damages a building [or motor vehicle] by intentionally starting a fire [or causing an explosion]. The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning: A person RECKLESSLY damages a building [or motor vehicle]: when that person does so by engaging in conduct which creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such damage will occur, and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk, and when the risk is of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.1 [NOTE: Add if appropriate: A person who creates such a risk but is unaware of it solely by reason of his or her voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly.2] 1 See Penal Law § 15.05(3); People v. Boutin, 75 NY2d 692, 696 (1990). 2 See Penal Law § 15.05(3); People v. Boutin, 75 NY2d 692, 696 (1990). [NOTE: Add, where appropriate: In addition to its ordinary meaning, the term BUILDING includes any structure, vehicle or watercraft used for overnight lodging of persons, or used by persons for carrying on business therein.3] [NOTE: Add, where appropriate: MOTOR VEHICLE includes every vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power.4] A person DAMAGES A BUILDING [or MOTOR VEHICLE] when that person causes the slightest damage to the building [or motor vehicle].
    [Show full text]
  • Cap. 16 Tanzania Penal Code Chapter 16 of the Laws
    CAP. 16 TANZANIA PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS (REVISED) (PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION) [Issued Under Cap. 1, s. 18] 1981 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, DARES SALAAM Penal Code [CAP. 16 CHAPTER 16 PENAL CODE Arrangement of Sections PARTI General Provisions CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title. 2. Its operation in lieu of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Saving of certain laws. CHAPTER II Interpretation 4. General rule of construction. 5. Interpretation. CHAPTER III Territorial Application of Code 6. Extent of jurisdiction of local courts. 7. Offences committed partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction, CHAPTER IV General Rules as to Criminal Responsibility 8. Ignorance of law. 9. Bona fide claim of right. 10. Intention and motive. 11. Mistake of fact. 12. Presumption of sanity^ 13. Insanity. 14. Intoxication. 15. Immature age. 16. Judicial officers. 17. Compulsion. 18. Defence of person or property. 18A. The right of defence. 18B. Use of force in defence. 18C. When the right of defence extends to causing abath. 19. Use of force in effecting arrest. 20. Compulsion by husband. 21. Persons not to be punished twice for the same offence. 4 CAP. 16] Penal Code CHAPTER V Parties to Offences 22. Principal offenders. 23. Joint offences. 24. Councelling to commit an offence. CHAPTER VI Punishments 25. Different kinds of punishment. 26. Sentence of death. 27: Imprisonment. 28. Corpora] punishment. 29. Fines. 30. Forfeiture. 31. Compensation. 32. Costs. 33. Security for keeping the peace. 34. [Repealed]. 35. General punishment for misdemeanours. 36. Sentences cumulative, unless otherwise ordered. 37. Escaped convicts to serve unexpired sentences when recap- 38.
    [Show full text]
  • View the Slip Opinion(S)
    FILED AUGUST 14, 2018 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 35295-1-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) BRYAN JACOB STORMS, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) FEARING, J. — This appeal requires us to address the prerogatives of the trial court when resentencing an offender on directions from the Court of Appeals when an error occurred in the initial sentence. We hold that the trial court did not engage in vindictiveness when resentencing appellant Bryan Storms and that Storms’ sentencing counsel did not engage in ineffective assistance of counsel when advocating during resentencing. Therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court during remand. FACTS On February 10, 2013, Bryan Storms sped from a pursuing police officer. State v. Storms, No. 32653-5-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/326535_unp.pdf. Storms ran through a stop sign in his Honda Civic, smashed into a pickup truck, and sent the truck into the air before it No. 35295-1-III State v. Storms struck a telephone pole. The driver of the pickup truck died at the scene. Storms’ two passengers, Ron Martel and Lynn Blumer, suffered injuries. Storms fled the collision scene on foot. PROCEDURE The State of Washington charged Bryan Storms with vehicular homicide, two counts of vehicular assault, failure to remain at the scene of an accident-fatality (hit and run) and third degree driving while license suspended. Vehicular homicide, under RCW 46.61.520, constitutes a three alternative means crime.
    [Show full text]