First Degree Arson (Aggravated Arson)
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Jun 19, 2018
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
First degree arson is the highest level of arson. The basic definition of arson is the starting of a fire or explosion with an intent to destroy or damage something. The intent or result of the arson will determine the degree of arson charged to a defendant. Read further to understand how first degree arson is charged, possible defenses, and the potential consequences.
First Degree Arson
First degree arson is considered the most egregious form of arson. Some states will also call the this aggravated arson or arson in the first degree. The first element of a first degree arson charge is a basic arson allegation. Most states require proof that a defendant intentionally or knowingly set a fire or caused an explosion that resulted in a fire.
The second component is proof of some aggravating circumstance. The aggravating factors that provoke a first degree charge vary by state. However, a defendant is usually charged with first degree arson when the overall intent or result is particularly harmful. The intent element is in addition to the general intent requirement for a basic arson charge.
Get Legal Help Today
Find the right lawyer for your legal issue.
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
If a defendant’s motivation for committing the offense is malicious, this intent will result in a first degree charge. Examples of malicious purposes include, setting a fire to obtain insurance settlement, to terrorize the occupant of a building, or with intent to harm another person or property. The malicious or illegal intent is usually inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Factors that courts have approved for developing this intent include showing that a defendant was in financial stress or had made prior threats of arson. The intent component frustrates many defendants because they feel that circumstantial evidence of intent should not be allowed. This is, however, the most common and accepted type of evidence used to develop intent.
The next key aggravating circumstance is the result, or potential result, of the arson. Regardless of the malicious intent, or lack thereof, many states will charge a defendant with first degree arson when a fire or explosion results in death or serious bodily injury to another person. South Carolina, for example, will aggravate an arson charge when another person dies as a result of the arson. Texas and Oregon, however, will aggravate to first degree when a defendant places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury. The main focus of these arson statutes is the risk of harm to others.
Another aggravating circumstance is the property destroyed as a result of the arson. A few states will enhance an arson allegation to first degree if the property destroyed or threatened is a habitation, place of worship, or business. However, most states will categorize property-based arson as second degree arson. While somewhat frustrating, understanding how a charge is elevated to first degree arson is extremely important to develop an effective defensive theory or strategy.
A defendant charged with arson based on a malicious intent may need to negate two different intents: the intent to set the fire and the intent to cause some harm. Some defendants choose to attack a first degree felony charge outright and claim innocence. When fire investigation techniques were less sophisticated, contesting causation was easier. However, with the advent of more extensive techniques and cameras in every major shopping center, many Fire Marshalls have been able to present a higher quality of evidence to show an intent to cause a fire or explosion. As a result, many defendants shift their defensive focus to negating the second malicious intent.
To pursue this defense approach, a defendant admits that he started the fire, but argues or presents evidence that any harm or potential harm was unintentional. More and more cities ban firecrackers during Fourth of July celebrations because of the number of people that accidentally set nearby houses on fire with bottle rockets. If this type of defendant lived in a “malicious intent” state, he or she could admit to starting the fire or explosion, but focus on showing that the result was purely accidental. This defense would not work in a state where destruction of a home is an aggravating circumstance by itself, even absent any other malicious intent evidence.
For the states in which the result or potential harm is the factor that provokes a first degree charge, a defendant can focus on demonstrating the accidental nature of the fire, and thus negating the requisite intent. They can also contest the harm or potential harm to another. For example, if a defendant accidentally sets fire to a trailer house in an isolated area, they could argue that no one was at risk of being injured.
Some defensive theories are state-specific. For example, Arizona permits a defendant to raise voluntary intoxication as a defense because arson is a specific intent crime. Texas, however, does not authorize voluntary intoxication as a defense, but will permit a defendant to show that he had a permit to start the fire as a defense to prosecution. Even if a defensive theory does not result in a complete dismissal, the development of a defensive theory can result in a lower arson charge.
Consequences of Conviction
The first major consequence of an aggravated arson conviction is the potential for jail time. Like defenses, the range of punishment for first degree arson varies by state. Next to murder, however, first degree arson is usually listed as one of the most serious offenses. A defendant in South Carolina can face a fifty-year sentence. A defendant in Texas faces five to ninety-nine years or life in prison. Because first degree arson is generally considered a crime of violence, a defendant convicted of arson also faces stiffer parole laws or rules. Many states require sentences for offenses that arise out of the same transaction run concurrently, or at the same time. A few states, however, make arson an exception to this rule and authorize stacking or consecutive sentencing, which can significantly increase a defendant’s time in prison.
If a defendant can show that the arson was not motivated for a violent purpose and no one was actually hurt, he or she may be able to qualify for probation. The probation conditions for a first degree charge can be intensive and are tailored to address a defendant’s motivation for setting the fire. For example, if money was the motivator, the defendant can be required to complete life skills or financial management classes. A defendant whose motivation is based on a mental condition can be required to attend counseling and complete any court ordered mental health programs. If a defendant can successfully negate the aggravating component of a first degree arson allegation, then he may be found guilty of a lesser included arson charge. A lesser charge means an even lighter punishment ranging from two to twenty years.
After a person is convicted of first degree arson, the charge is usually available for enhancement, should the defendant reoffend. Some states have very specific enhancement provisions for prior crimes of violence. This means that a defendant can face an even larger amount of time if he reoffends.
The secondary consequence of a first degree arson conviction is limited employment. While not quite as bad as a sex offender condition, for example, a first degree arson charge can limit employment opportunities because the insurance company for the employer views the defendant as a safety risk. Higher risk means a higher premium for the employer.