Criminal Law

Jurisdiction
Which state can prosecute?
 Single jurisdiction → state where a significant portion of the crime occurred can prosecute
 Multiple jurisdictions → if significant portion of crime occurred in two states (e.g., Δ shot across
state line, killed victim in another state), then BOTH states can prosecute
o Double jeopardy is no bar to multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions

Merger
Merger → where a lesser included offense is merged into a greater offense
 Means that Δ can be charged w/ both crimes, jury can consider both, evidence can be offered on
both → but Δ CANNOT be punished for both
 Fave fact patterns:
o Attempt merging into completed offense
o Manslaughter merging into murder

Elements of a Crime
(1) Actus Reus → voluntary, conscious physical act
o Unconscious act problem → e.g., where Δ kills someone due to unexpected seizure
 Rule → the act was involuntary, Δ won’t be criminally responsible
 Repeat offender → Δ can be criminally responsible if he had notice that
something like this might happen (e.g., has had seizures before)
(2) Mens Rea
o Specific v. general intent; strict liability crimes, etc.

BOP → beyond a reasonable doubt; govt. must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt
 Burden CANNOT be shifted to Δ
 EXCEPT re: affirmative defenses (e.g., insanity) → Δ CAN be required to prove this by
preponderance, clear & convincing (federal level), and SC even said BRD for insanity

Failure to Act
Failure to Act → in both torts AND criminal law, there is NO affirmative duty to help others
 Exceptions:
(1) Certain kinds of relationships (e.g., family) → must take reasonable steps
(2) Contractual obligation (e.g., lifeguard)
(3) When Δ affirmatively begins to act → assume a duty to act reasonably

1
Mental State (Mens Rea)
Common Law States of Mind:

(1) Specific Intent → intent to engage in proscribed conduct

~Govt. must prove that Δ had the specific intent to commit these crimes!!! → can’t be guilty
unless you intended to do it!!
o Inchoate offenses (solicitation, contempt, conspiracy)
o 1st degree murder (defined by statute)
o One form of assault → attempted battery (intent to commit a battery)
o Property offenses (larceny, false pretenses, embezzlement, robbery, burglary)
o Accessory after the fact
Defenses → (1) voluntary intoxication & (2) mistake of fact (even an unreasonable one)
These NEGATE the mens rea (intent) requirement!!!

(2) Malice → reckless disregard of a known risk

~Govt. must prove recklessness
“Reckless” → conscious disregard for substantial risk that prohibited result will follow
and this disregard constitutes gross deviation from the standard of reasonable care (fact
question)
o Arson
Non-specific intent crimes:
o Murder A Man Runs By Kids
A—Arson
(3) General Intent → awareness of acting in a proscribed manner M—Murder
R—Rape
~Govt. must prove ??? → exam won’t test on it B—Battery
o Rape K—Kidnapping
o Battery
o Kidnapping

(4) Strict Liability → NO state of mind requirement; govt. only has to prove a voluntary conscious
act
o Constitutionality → these are constitutional because they aren’t real crimes; mostly
regulatory offenses involving only fines

No Mental State listed in Statute? → doesn’t mean it’s strict liability; judges will read in a mens rea
requirement; legislature has to clearly state that it’s eliminating a mens rea requirement

Transferred Intent (e.g., Δ aims at X, accidentally shoots and kills Y)

 Δ’s intent to kill X can be transferred to the death of Y
 Merger → there is NO merger of attempted murder into murder here, because Δ intended to
murder X, but murdered Y
o So Δ is charged w/ murder of Y and attempted murder of X → two distinct victims
 As a defense → if Δ aims to kill X in self-defense, and accidentally shoots and kills Y
o If it would have been a good defense re: X, it is still a good defense re: Y

MPC States of Mind:

1. purpose → highest level [you did it on purpose]

2
 2. knowledge → knew consequences of actions [you knew that it would happen when you did what
you did]
3. recklessness → conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk that material elements
exist; involves gross deviation from conduct of law-abiding person [you knew that it might
happen and you did it anyway]
4. negligence → should have been aware of the risk; deviation from standard of care of a reasonable
person, unjustified risk [you shouldn’t have been doing what you were doin regardless, even if
you didn’t intent for it to happen]

NOTE → In a statute where a mens rea is designated → it refers to EVERY material element of the crime
unless otherwise specified
 Thus, a mistake of law may negate the state of mind required for a crime!!! (exception to
general rule that mistake of law is no defense)
 E.g., false imprisonment defined as “knowingly confining person w/out valid consent and w/out
authority of law”—if Δ thought he was authorized, this negates necessary intent

Simultaneous Act & State of Mind

Simultaneous Act & State of Mind
 Timing requirement → govt. must show that Δ had the necessary state of mind at the time he
committed the crime, not after
~ E.g., if bum breaks into house to get out of blizzard, then wakes up and sees TV and steals it—
guilty of larceny only! Did not have intent to steal when he entered!
o “Mistake of death” case → where Δ thinks he’s killed victim, but victim is still alive;
when Δ disposes of victim’s body, this is when victim dies
o Apply a legal fiction → we assume that when Δ thought victim was dead, he was correct
 So we’ll charge Δ with whatever crime he would have been guilty of (murder,
manslaughter, etc.)

Parties to the Crime

Accomplice Liability (Modern Approach) (simple, less likely to be on the exam)
 Modern statutes say that individuals can be held responsible for the crimes of others if the govt.
shows:
(1) The person provided assistance in the commission of the crime
(2) And did so intentionally (culpable mental state)
 NOTE → when target offense requires mental state of recklessness, some courts
still require a showing of an actual intent on the part of the accomplice to have
the crime occur
 NEED CULPABLE MENTAL STATE RE: CRIME→ intentional or reckless

Aiding & Abetting → One who aids, counsels or encourages another, and who is present when the crime
is committed, is generally guilty of aiding and abetting
 BUT members of a class sought to be protected by the statute violated are exempt from liability
(e.g., minor can’t be prosecuted for aiding & abetting sale of alcohol to minors)

NOTE → accomplice must INTEND TO AID—not enough to simply know that a crime will

3
 result from aid provided!!! (recklessness is not enough)

Common Law Approach (more complicated; more likely to be on the bar)

 4 categories of parties:
(1) Principal in the 1st Degree
Note:  Present at the scene of the crime, and commits at least one element of the crime
These are not
CRIMES; they  This is what laypeople think of as the “real criminal”
are merely (2) Principal in the 2d Degree
classifications  Present at the scene of the crime, but not committing any element of the crime
that help
establish  Providing assistance to the Principal in the 1st Degree (usually the get-away
liability… driver or lookout)
(3) Accessory Before-the-Fact
 Not at the scene of the crime, but provides assistance ahead of time, before the
fact
 Might even be the mastermind
(4) Accessory After-the-Fact
This IS a
separate  Person who provides assistance to the fleeing criminal after the crime is
crime completed
 Specific intent crime

Significance of these Designations

 All parties can be joined together in a prosecution
 Each party is held criminally responsible for the foreseeable crimes of the others

INCHOATE OFFENSES

Solicitation
Solicitation → asking or encouraging another to commit a crime
 The moment words are uttered, the crime has been completed
 Solicitor will be held as a party to the ultimate crime
 Withdrawal → CANNOT withdraw
 Impossibility → NO defense
 Merger → solicitation MERGES into the complete offense OR the attempt!

Conspiracy
Conspiracy → 2+ parties with:
(1) intent to agree AND
(2) intent to achieve the objective of the agreement
(3) plus an OVERT ACT

 Number of Parties:
o Traditional approach → have to have two or more people with the capacity to commit a
crime and the intent to enter into the agreement
 E.g., if one party is an undercover cop → no conspiracy

4
 o Modern Trend: Unilateral Approach → doesn’t matter if there was an actual agreement,
so long as Δ believed there was
 E.g., if one party is an undercover cop → Δ can still be guilty of conspiracy
 Overt Act → once you’ve agreed to join a conspiracy, some OVERT ACT is taken, you are guilty
of the crime of conspiracy
o Can be a small act, just something to show that Δs are serious (e.g., making a phone call)
 Liability for Acts of Co-Conspirators
o If you are in a conspiracy, you are liable (under agency principles) for all
FORESEEABLE crimes unless you withdraw—not liable for crimes after withdrawal
 Killing during crime is always foreseeable
o BUT WITHDRAWAL IS NO DEFENSE TO CONSPIRACY
o Withdrawal → need:
(1) Affirmative act notifying all members of the conspiracy
(2) Done in time for them (other conspirators) to have opportunity to abandon plans
~ DO NOT have to notify police unless exam question tells you law requires this
 Types of Conspiracies
o Chain → one subject matter (i.e., drugs, guns), and every person involved is a necessary
part of it (don’t have to know who else is involved)
o Wheel/spoke → many independent conspiracies linked by a common member
 Merger → DOES NOT APPLY
 Impossibility → NO defense!

Wharton Rule → An agreement by two persons to commit a particular crime cannot be prosecuted as a
conspiracy when the crime is of such a nature as to necessarily require the participation of two persons for
its commission (e.g., re: adultery, bigamy, incest)

Attempt
Attempt → when Δ has taken a substantial step toward the completion of the crime
(1) Specific intent crime
(2) Substantial step → more than that required for conspiracy (e.g., waiting outside Δ’s house, but
not just buying the gun)
 Merger → merges into the completed crime
 Withdrawal/Abandonment → NO defense
o HOWEVER → MPC permits Δ to avoid liability for attempt if he can prove that:
(a) the abandonment was entirely voluntary (e.g., not just because it was harder than
anticipated to commit the crime), and
(b) the abandonment was complete (e.g., not just waiting to do it until later)
 Impossibility:
o Factual impossibility (e.g., gun wasn’t loaded) → NO defense
o Legal impossibility (e.g., Δ thought it was a crime but it wasn’t) → IS a defense

5
 DEFENSES
~Where govt. has proven enough to take it to the jury,
but as a matter of policy we say Δ ought to prevail

Insanity
Insanity Defense → rarely successful, but when it is, it’s a complete defense to ALL crimes regardless of
the mental state because the person lacks capacity
 TESTS:
(1) M’Naughten Standard → mental illness caused a defect of reason such that Δ didn’t
know his acts were illegal (i.e., didn’t know right from wrong); focus on cognition
(2) Irresistible Impulse Test → mental illness caused sudden urge to commit crime which
could not be resisted; focus on volition
(3) Product Rule (NO states have this) → no criminal responsibility if crime was the product
of mental illness
(4) MPC Test (aka ALI Test) → combo of #1 and #2; mental illness caused substantial
impairment of the ability to (i) appreciate the wrongfulness of the act (M’Naughten) or
(ii) to conform conduct to the law (irresistible impulse)

Intoxication
Involuntary Intoxication → defense to ALL crimes
 E.g., go to party and punch was spiked w/ hallucinogen that caused you to kill someone

Voluntary Intoxication
 Voluntary intoxication evidence is ONLY admissible re: specific intent crimes, NO exceptions
 Argument is that it prevented Δ from formulating the requisite intent
 State law → some states have enacted statutes saying that, due to policy, evidence of voluntary
intoxication CANNOT be brought in for ANY crime
o SC has ruled that this does not violate the constitution

Mistake
Mistake of FACT
 IS a defense for specific intent crimes → mistake does not have to be reasonable, just genuine
(e.g., Δ mistakenly takes victim’s black coat instead of his red one [larceny is specific intent])

Mistake of LAW → generally, not a defense, even if reasonable (except for ABOVE)
 IS a defense where Δ relied on an official interpretation of the law from some govt. party (e.g.,
attorney general, agency official, mayor’s office, etc.)
o NOT ok to rely on intern working for the agency!
 IS a defense where the statute proscribing conduct was not published or made reasonably
available prior to the conduct

6
  NOT a defense if relied on own lawyer

Distinguish from → failure of proof

o Some crimes require Δ’s knowledge of violation of the law as an element; when govt.
fails to prove this element, this is “failure of proof”—not mistake of law

Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Defense of Property

Self-Defense → victim w/out fault can use that amount of force reasonably necessary under the
circumstances
 Objective test → did victim reasonably believe he was a victim and that this force was
necessary?
o Threat must be IMMINENT, no future threats
 Subjective test → victim has to personally and genuinely need to use force, and believe it’s
needed; good faith need
o Victim can’t create the condition so he can harm someone (e.g., follow someone)

Aggressor → can’t claim self-defense when victim fights back UNLESS aggressor is no longer
the aggressor (i.e., victim uses higher level of force in defense, retaliation)

Amount of force → reasonably necessary under the circumstances; deadly force is only ok re:
deadly force

Defense of Others → same as self-defense

 Δ has a right to defend others if she reasonably believes that the person assisted has the legal right
to use force in his own defense
 Reasonable mistake is ok → only need a reasonable appearance of the right to use force (it’s ok
if Δ is actually wrong, and the person they helped was actually the aggressor—different from
torts, where you have to be right)

Protection of Property → you CAN use force to protect your property

 Exception → you CANNOT use deadly force to protect property, as a matter of law this is
excessive (e.g., kill someone to protect your wallet)
 In the home → if robber is threatening you or your family while robbing home, deadly force is to
protect yourself, not your property
 “Stand Your Ground” Statutes → growing trend of statutes that say that if someone is in your
house unlawfully, you can use deadly force against that person even if they do not appear to pose
an immediate threat toward anyone

NOTE → fleeing felon problem

 Nondeadly force → ok to the extent that it reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony or
serious breach of the peace
 Deadly force → reasonable (by police OR private citizen!) only if:
(1) Necessary to prevent felon’s escape, AND
(2) Felon threatens death or serious bodily harm to others (burglary isn’t enough since most
burglars are unarmed; need something like murder, rape, robbery, etc.)
 Deadly force to prevent completion of a crime → ok if crime is a “dangerous felony” involving

7
 risk to human life

Duress & Necessity

Duress → Δ reasonably believed that another would imminently harm him or a family member if he
didn’t commit the crime
 Available for all crimes EXCEPT homicide

Necessity → when Δ is forced by the circumstances to commit the crime, must be a public necessity
 E.g., burn down someone else’s house to stop a spreading fire
 May NEVER use deadly force; not a defense for homicide

Entrapment
Entrapment
(1) Police instigated the crime (induced Δ to act)
(2) To combat the defense, govt. has BOP (beyond reasonable doubt) to show that Δ was
predisposed to commit the crime prior to the govt. contact
o Could should enthusiastic response from Δ
o More common → show that Δ has committed this crime before (admissible as exception
to evidence rule barring evidence of Δ’s prior crimes to prove conduct)

CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Battery
Battery → crime in which Δ inflicts an unwarranted touching against another
 Definition → unlawful or reckless application of force upon another
 Don’t have to cause any physical harm
 Unwarranted = unreasonable (normal bumping in public is not unreasonable)

Assault
Two Kinds of Assault:
(1) Attempted Battery → substantial step toward completion of the crime of battery
o Focus on Δ’s state of mind
o Specific intent crime
(2) Apprehension Assault → the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm (is this specific intent???)
o Focus on victim’s state of mind

8
 HOMICIDE
 Homicide → involves the unlawful killing of a human being by a human being
o A person must die
o Killing must be directed by another person, even if not personally done by him (e.g., if
you let loose your pitbull on someone, it qualifies)

Murder

Murder → unlawful killing of a human being WITH MALICE

 Common law murder is the same as statutory 2d degree murder
 NOT a specific intent crime!!! → so voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense
 Malice → can be shown in 4 ways:
(1) Intent to kill
(2) Intent to inflict great bodily harm
(3) Implied malice (“depraved heart”)
 Δ was grossly reckless (e.g., driving a hummer on MI Ave. at 90 mph)
 Reckless indifference to an unusually high risk of death or serious injury
 Note → if hummer hits car and other driver is merely injured, this is NOT
attempted murder (all attempts are specific intent crimes)
(4) Intent to commit a felony (felony murder)
 Involves a killing during the course of a violent felony
 “during the course” → broadly construed, includes when Δ is fleeing
 Fact call—figure out when commission of crime has ended
 “violent felony” → dangerous crime (e.g., armed robbery, sexual assault, etc.)
 Inherently dangerous felony
o Burglary
o Arson
o Rape
o Robbery
o Kidnapping
 Only foreseeable killings → but almost everything will qualify, unless really
bizarre (e.g., storage closet turned out to be freezer and victim had weird lung
condition—no felony murder here)
 Death of co-felon → majority view—liability for murder cannot be based on the
death of a co-felon from resistance by the victim or police pursuit (“justifiable
homicide”)
 Who caused the death
 Common law → doesn’t matter who caused the death (e.g., police), as
long as foreseeable
 Modern trend → death must be directly caused by one of Δs
o NOTE → if the death doesn’t qualify as felony murder, it could
still qualify as implied malice
 Δ must be guilty of the underlying felony
 So Δ could raise the voluntary intoxication defense to show that the
offense was not a felony but, once the felony was proven, could not

9
 claim voluntary intoxication to defend against felony murder
 But implied malice could still be found
 DEATH PENALTY—may not be imposed for felony murder where Δ, as an
ACCOMPLICE, did not take, attempt, or intend to take a life, or intend that
lethal force be employed

Manslaughter
Manslaughter → unlawful killing of a human being WITHOUT MALICE
 Voluntary Manslaughter → killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate
provocation; i.e., “heat of passion”
o This is NOT a defense → but it reduces murder to manslaughter
o Situation where Δ loses it and kills someone
o Adequate Provocation:
(1) Provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an
ordinary person, causing him to lose self-control (objective)
(2) Δ was in fact provoked (subjective)
(3) No time for a reasonable person to cool off (objective)
(4) Δ did not cool off (subjective)
 Involuntary Manslaugher
o In connection w/ a lawful act → lawful act committed in a reckless fashion (less reckless
than murder)
 Death caused by criminal negligence → person fails to be aware of a substantial
and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow,
constituting a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would exercise under the circumstances
 E.g., driving a car when you know that you are subject to seizures
 More heavily populated the area, more likely that people will be present → more
likely that it will be reckless
o In connection w/ an unlawful act → killing in connection w/ a crime that’s not a violent
felony (e.g., shove someone and they fall onto a sharp point)

1st Degree Murder

1st Degree Murder → in statutes where murder is defined by statute, it is often divided into 1st and 2d
degree; 2d degree is common law murder…1st degree is more serious
 Higher state of mind → requires premeditation and deliberation…SPECIFIC INTENT (unlike
2d degree)
 Thus, voluntary intoxication could be a defense, lower it to 2d degree

Causation
Causation → Δ’s conduct must be both (i) the actual cause AND (ii) the proximate cause

(1) Actual Cause (cause-in-fact)

o But-for cause

10
 o Two people could be the but-for cause (e.g., A poisons victim and then B shoots victim)

(2) Proximate Cause

o Δ responsible for the foreseeable consequences of his acts
o Fact patterns:
 It’s foreseeable that a victim might hurt themselves trying to get away
 It’s foreseeable that a victim might be harmed by negligent medical care
o Don’t think about intervening or superseding causes like in torts → here, key is
foreseeability only

Kidnapping
Kidnapping → unlawful confinement of a person that involves either:
(1) Some movement of the victim (even if just from building to street), or
(2) Concealment of the victim in a “secret place”
(3) Without valid consent

Criminal False Imprisonment

Criminal False Imprisonment →
(1) Unlawful confinement of a person
(2) Without valid consent (i.e., no deception, threats, incapacity, etc.)

NOTE → this is a lesser offense of kidnapping (can’t be convicted of both!)—kidnapping has added
element of movement or concealment

Rape & Statutory Rape

Rape → elements:
(1) Intercourse (any penetration whatsoever)
(2) By force or threat of force
(3) W/out consent by the victim

Marital exemption → common law rule used to be that husbands couldn’t rape their wives
o This is NO LONGER THE MAJORITY RULE
o Now, there is no majority rule → different states handle this different ways

Statutory Rape → carnal knowledge of a female under the age of consent (varies by jurisdiction)
 Strict liability crime
o Minor cannot consent, as a matter of law
o Mistake of age is NO defense (Δ must take affirmative steps to make sure)

11
 PROPERTY OFFENSES
Larceny
Larceny → TITLE DOES NOT PASS

(1) The taking and carrying away (from owner’s control)

(2) By trespass against possession (taking property against owner’s will)
o Note → someone other than owner could have right to possession (e.g., mechanic w/
mechanic’s lien—i.e., right to payment)
(3) With intent to permanently deprive owner of possession
o Doesn’t have to be ownership
o In most jurisdictions, can even be larceny if the victim only had possession due to some
wrongful act
(4) Personal property (not real property—apple on tree v. apple on ground example)

NOTE → if you pick up watch in store w/ intent to steal (even if just lift 2 inches off of shelf) but then
decide to put it back…you are still guilty of larceny!! (although obviously it’s unlikely you’ll be caught)

Larceny by Trick → if victim consents to Δ’s taking possession of the property, but such consent has
been induced by a misrepresentation, the consent is NOT valid (e.g., “I’ll take this money and give it to
X” when Δ really intends to keep it)
 Different from false pretenses because title has NOT been obtained

Common Law Continuing Trespass Doctrine → if Δ takes property w/ a wrongful state of mind but
w/out the intent to steal, and later, while still in possession of it, forms the intent to steal it, the trespass
involved in the initial wrongful taking is regarded as continuing, and Δ is guilty of larceny

NOTE → one can commit larceny through an agent (e.g., get someone else to take something)

Embezzlement
Embezzlement → TITLE DOES NOT PASS

(1) The fraudulent

(2) Conversion
(3) Of personal property of another
(4) By a person with lawful possession of that property

Possession is the key difference from larceny → Δ physically has the goods, but also has discretion,
authorization, permission; so Δ is also violating a trust
o E.g., manager of store and check-out boy both steal → manager is embezzling, boy is
guilty of larceny

12
False Pretenses
False Pretenses → TITLE DOES PASS
(1) Obtaining title
(2) To personal property of another
(3) By intentional false statement of past/existing fact (Δ has to know the statement is false)
o NO DUTY TO CORRECT someone else’s misconception (so long as Δ didn’t create it)
(4) With intent to defraud

Note → this can involve money too; gaining “title” to money just means that the money was given to
Δ with the intention that Δ keep it, due to the false pretenses

Victim’s Unreasonable Belief → doesn’t matter if victim was unreasonable in relying on the false
pretenses, Δ is still guilty

Receiving Stolen Property

Receiving Stolen Property
(1) Person must actually receive
(2) Stolen personal property (not real property)
o Sting operation → property loses its “stolen” status once recovered by the police; Δ can
at most be charged w/ attempt to receive stolen property
 Look to see if police or rightful owner ever took possession—if permission of
rightful owner not obtained before use in sting, then it’s still “stolen”
(3) With knowledge that it’s been stolen (at the time it’s received)
(4) With the intent to permanently deprive the owner

Robbery

Robbery → crime against a person (similar to larceny, but more serious)

(1) Taking personal property
(2) With intent to permanently deprive the owner
(3) From another’s person or presence
(4) By force or threat of force (distinction from larceny)

NOTE → can’t be guilty of BOTH robbery AND larceny or assault

 Robbery = larceny + assault

OFFENSES AGAINST THE HABITATION

Burglary
Burglary
(1) Breaking (any level of force, e.g., using credit card to jimmy lock)

13
 (2) And entering
o e.g., throw a brick through a window but are arrested before entering → NOT a burglary
(but would be attempted burglary)
o e.g., Δ shoots a gun and bullet goes inside and kills victim → IS a burglary (and also a
homicide)
o e.g., dressing up as a maintenance man to get victim to let you in (constitutes breaking &
entering)
(3) Of a dwelling (now → does NOT have to be a dwelling, can be any structure)
(4) Of another
(5) At nighttime (now → does NOT have to occur at night)
(6) With the intent to commit a felony inside → specific intent crime
o E.g., not a burglary to break in to get out of a storm
o Must intend to commit acts that would constitute a felony—if acts intended would NOT
be a felony (mistake of law), no burglary

Common Law → requires that it be (i) a dwelling, (ii) of another [can’t break into your own house] and
(iii) at night

NOTE → CAN be guilty of both burglary AND the felony that Δ entered with the intention to commit
(e.g., larceny)

Arson
Arson
(1) The malicious → NOT a specific intent crime, either intentional burning or clearly foreseeable
burning qualifies (e.g., start fire next to building on windy day)
(2) Burning
o Must be some flickering flame that damages the fiber of the structure
o Mere scorch rule → it’s NOT enough to scorch the place (e.g., blister paint, smoke
damage), there MUST be a flame (charring, slight burning…not enough if there is simply
damage caused by intense head [i.e., scorching])
(3) Of a dwelling (now → does NOT have to be a dwelling) → actual building must be burned, not
just stuff inside
(4) Of another

14