Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
8. The defendant is
A defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation, he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. The defendant could have put out the fire, but instead left the building because he wanted the building destroyed. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. The defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
As mentioned above, when the MBE tests on the crime of arson, it will impliedly follow the modern trend that the structure does not need to be the dwelling of another. Here, the answer choices focus on intent, so it's important to focus on the malicious intent rather than getting hung up on the fact that the defendant's actions do not fall within the common law definition of arson (the fact that the structure is not the dwelling of another).
A is correct. To establish malice in an arson case, the prosecution need only show that the defendant displayed extreme recklessness or recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that the burning of the structure would occur. Here, the facts state that the defendant, while looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. The defendant could have put out the fire, but instead left the building because he wanted the building destroyed. This meets the malicious intent required for an arson conviction.
B is incorrect. As discussed above, arson is a malice crime. Malicious intent requires more than mere negligence. Negligence alone is insufficient proof of malicious burning. In this case, the defendant's recklessness, combined with the obvious risk of the burning, demonstrates malice and the defendant can properly be convicted of arson.
C is incorrect. Arson is a malice crime and not a specific intent crime. As such, arson requires only the malicious burning of the building, as evidenced by extreme recklessness, not the specific intent to burn the building down.
D is incorrect. The burning of the structure need not be intentional, as long as it is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's extremely reckless lighting of a match around flammable materials and then letting the fire grow. Because the defendant allowed a minor fire, which he started, to spread throughout the building because he wanted the building destroyed, he is guilty of arson.